# Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft: An In-Depth Review



## Steampunkette (May 14, 2021)

I ordered this book months ago. I've been eagerly waiting for it.

This review just makes me angry.

I work on the 18th. It'll be delivered while I'm at work because I'm covering a shift.


----------



## jgsugden (May 14, 2021)

I'm mostly curious, at this point, about how the domain is linked to the Shadowfell.  At the start of 4E, I decided that my Ravenloft domains would just be mist shrouded areas within the Shadowfell - so I'm curious how close to that the book ventures.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 14, 2021)

I think Keith Baker announced he is making a DMsGuild product for an Eberron based domain as well to supplement this release.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 14, 2021)

Great in-depth review!! Thanks!

I'm impatient for the 18th to roll around!!!


----------



## Lieslo (May 14, 2021)

Not sure about the lack of stats for the Darklords given that we have stats for Strahd and other iconic figures such as Tiamat and the demon lords etc. Will be interesting to see how much detail we have on them to help the DM stat them up if they want to use them as the BBEG.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (May 14, 2021)

Marcelus14 said:


> I think Keith Baker announced he is making a DMsGuild product for an Eberron based domain as well to supplement this release.



I believe it is set on the train mentioned in the review.  Someone posted about this recently


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (May 14, 2021)

Nice review


----------



## imagineGod (May 14, 2021)

A damn good review. Almost like getting the book for free.


----------



## dave2008 (May 14, 2021)

Great review, this has helped move me to the purchase column.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 14, 2021)

Great review. Have we ever learned why common people are stuck in the domains? Are they being punished? This part always struck me as sad.... That people of various kinds were also trapped in the domains, for nothing they had done.


----------



## imagineGod (May 14, 2021)

Hopefully, we do not face an old fashioned Dalek problem from a Doctor Who inspired domain with regards to stairs. Though the new generation Daleks can finally fly.


----------



## dave2008 (May 14, 2021)

I wish I had the energy to stat up the Dark Lords and put them on DMsGuild, but I don't.  Maybe when I am up for it I will get them posted here though.

On that note: have the dark lords been given stats before?


----------



## mcmillan (May 14, 2021)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I believe it is set on the train mentioned in the review.  Someone posted about this recently



The train is in the official book. Baker's book is different


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (May 14, 2021)

mcmillan said:


> The train is in the official book. Baker's book is different



Ok, I thought he was as providing an adventure in the train, my mistake


----------



## DemoMonkey (May 14, 2021)

I hope you are getting a commission, because that review moved me from "Why would I want this?" straight to "Why have I not pre-ordered this already!?"


----------



## The Glen (May 14, 2021)

And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 14, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



"Lazy writing"? No. Writing you're not interested in? Sure.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 14, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Great review. Have we ever learned why common people are stuck in the domains? Are they being punished? This part always struck me as sad.... That people of various kinds were also trapped in the domains, for nothing they had done.



While the Dread Domains are prisons for the most evil of beings (darklords like Strahd) and the Dread Domains are controlled by the Dark Powers . . . the nature and motivations of the Dark Powers has always been left mysterious. However, they are never described as agents of justice or goodness.

When a darklord is pulled into the domains, many others surrounding them end up trapped alongside the evil darklord. When Strahd was pulled into Ravenloft, so were the people of Barovia, innocent or otherwise. The "common folk" of the domains are a mix of normal mortal beings with souls . . . . and people who are essentially constructs of the domains and have no souls. The common folk aren't always aware of this, and have no way of knowing if they are "real" or not . . . which adds to the darkness and horror of the setting.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 14, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Great review. Have we ever learned why common people are stuck in the domains? Are they being punished? This part always struck me as sad.... That people of various kinds were also trapped in the domains, for nothing they had done.




One of the fragmentary spoiler posts claimed there's a new gimmick where some of the inhabitants are more like set dressing created to support the nightmare logic of the Domains, but in a way where there's still moral weight to killing or abusing them. I don't know more details than that.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 14, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> One of the fragmentary spoiler posts claimed there's a new gimmick where some of the inhabitants are more like set dressing created to support the nightmare logic of the Domains, but in a way where there's still moral weight to killing or abusing them. I don't know more details than that.



I'm not a Ravenloft guru, but . . . pretty sure it's always been this way. Some of the inhabitants are "real" and have souls, others are constructs and do not . . . but they are still sentient beings, just sentient beings who can never leave Ravenloft or they would cease to exist . . .


----------



## Kurotowa (May 14, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not a Ravenloft guru, but . . . pretty sure it's always been this way. Some of the inhabitants are "real" and have souls, others are constructs and do not . . . but they are still sentient beings, just sentient beings who can never leave Ravenloft or they would cease to exist . . .




I will take your word for it. Most of my interaction with earlier editions of Ravenloft was reading the novels, and that was decades ago.


----------



## imagineGod (May 14, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



It is not PG horror. Only if you run it for kids. 

That is the beauty, your Players and GM decide the depth of horror to bring to the table. 

Not just the GM laying ambush. ;-)


----------



## Voadam (May 14, 2021)

brimmels said:


> I really like the revised version of Har'Akir. Ruled by a mummy lord, the original version of Ankhtepot was inspired by the Boris Karloff classic mummy movie. The thing is that movie had a lot of style but not much of story. In this revised version, Ankhtepot is an arrogant, power hungry high priest who betrays his pharaoh and, ultimately, his gods.



So he's now a priest who betrayed his pharaoh instead of the pharaoh himself who crossed the gods in seeking immortality.

His 2e background:

"Pharaoh Anhktepot ruled centuries ago in the great desert land of Har'Akir. The pharaoh, like most of his culture, was obsessed with death. The religion of the people revolved around death, and the pharaoh was the link between men and the gods. Anhktepot himself was a priest of Ra, the sun god.
Anhktepot commanded his priests to find a way for him to live forever. Many slaves and prisoners died horribly as subjects in Anhktepot's gruesome experiments. Totally frustrated with the lack of success, the pharaoh had several temples burned and razed. He stalked into the Kharn temple, greatest of all in Har'Akir, and cursed the gods for not granting him his heart's desire. Ra, sun god and patron of the pharaohs, answered Anhktepot. He told the pharaoh that he would live even after death, though he might wish otherwise. Ra did not elaborate.
Anhktepot left the temple elated but confused. He still did not know how to cheat death. That night, everyone he touched died. His wife, several servants, and his eldest child—all were dead. According to custom, they were mummified and entombed in great buildings in the desert.
One day the priests rebelled against the pharaoh and murdered him in his sleep. The funeral lasted for a month. During it, Anhktepot was awake and helpless, trapped inside his own corpse. His mind screamed as they mummified his body. He was nearly insane when they entombed him.
As the sun set, and Ra's power waned, the borders of Ravenloft seeped into the desert kingdom to steal away the tomb of Anhktepot and the nearby small village of Mudar."


----------



## AmerginLiath (May 14, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not a Ravenloft guru, but . . . pretty sure it's always been this way. Some of the inhabitants are "real" and have souls, others are constructs and do not . . . but they are still sentient beings, just sentient beings who can never leave Ravenloft or they would cease to exist . . .



Are there any mechanics where the PCs themselves may be faced with that question about their own reality? The oft-spoken 5e carousel of life and death becomes a lot more complicated when your character fears that his death may simply erase him from existence — or else send him elsewhere on the “stage.”


----------



## AmerginLiath (May 14, 2021)

I’m curious to see how these mechanics work with horror based more on conspiracy and questioning of reality and perception. I’ve joked in another thread about making a domain like The Village from The Prisoner, where high-level PCs find themselves prisoners of a shifting banality that their heroism seems somehow incapable of affecting.


----------



## Voadam (May 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I wish I had the energy to stat up the Dark Lords and put them on DMsGuild, but I don't.  Maybe when I am up for it I will get them posted here though.
> 
> On that note: have the dark lords been given stats before?



Throughout 2e and 3e. From the core boxed set on.

3.0 in the Ravenloft corebook did not stat them or even specify who were the darklords, the book was fully appropriate for player's to read as natives of the setting. Stats showed up for 3.0 in stuff like the DM specific Secrets of the Dread Realms.


----------



## jgsugden (May 14, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



Consider the type of Horror Ravenloft represents.

Gothic Horror.

It isn't about gore, necessarily.  It isn't about violence, necessarily.  It is about Dread and Fear.  It is about Terror.  It is about people dying unjustly with tragic consequences.  It is about being haunted.  It is lingering pain that won't go away.

While this can involve gore and rated R (or X) materials, it is absolutely not necessary.  You can make truly terrifying and dread inducing tales with materials that are as innocent as fallen snow - the contrast makes it more strident when done properly.  This book attempts to take a broad approach to dread and fear.  It comes from many cultural origins, and uses a lot of different tools.  

If you think it doesn't appeal because it isn't what you are thinking, I'd offer it might be everything you are thinking _and so much more._

My Ravenloft Domains, which have existed since 3E and only undergone 'administrative changes' include domains inspired by many different episodes of the Twilight Zone, Hellraiser, game events (a massive massacre, the Death of a God that was obsessed with their duty, etc...), the Bible, Cthulhu mythos, Stephen King, The 7 Deadly Sins, The Killing Joke, etc...  Technically, Barovia is in there as well, but I have never used it.  The elements I stole from these inspirations stuck out to me because they were situations that just suuuuuuuuucked for the people involved and could haunt them forever - and that is what rises to the level of a Ravenloft Domain for me.  A major event that will Haunt a Key player forever.  There are a lot of ways to get there.


----------



## dave2008 (May 14, 2021)

Voadam said:


> 3.0 in the Ravenloft corebook did not stat them or even specify who were the darklords, the book was fully appropriate for player's to read as natives of the setting. Stats showed up for 3.0 in stuff like the DM specific Secrets of the Dread Realms.



Any other books with stats? Did the corebook give descriptions of the dark lords, but no stats or nothing at all?

I'm getting a little inspired to stat them up and want to get as much background info as I can.  Thanks!


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Great review. Have we ever learned why common people are stuck in the domains? Are they being punished? This part always struck me as sad.... That people of various kinds were also trapped in the domains, for nothing they had done.



I don’t know what the original canon answer is, or if it’s addressed in the new book, but I’ll tell you what explanation I’m going with: the dark powers feed on fear. To remain sated, they need victims to torment. The Darklords are their living (or unliving) avatars, through whom the dark powers enact their terrors on their victims. Yes, the Darklords are _also_ victims of the dark powers, but it’s a torment of their own choosing. They submit to the dark power they are most closely aligned with, and feed it by enacting the particular flavor of terror it desires within a domain created specifically for them, as both prison and playground. They alone within their respective domains have the power to alleviate their own suffering by making others share in it.


----------



## Professor Murder (May 14, 2021)

I'm looking forward to this as a longtime fan of the setting from back in 2nd ed.
Many of the domains and Darklords were is desperate need of a refresh so I look forward to seeing the new takes.
The stress/fear mechanics show potential and I look forward to trying them out in play.
As I have said elsewhere, my only issue is the lack of the core. The domains as nations of sorts that had relationships with each other was something well developed in 3rd by White Wolf when they had the license. I will hold off final judgement until I read how it is all handled in the book.
Like any book, it is a tool box. Use what you like, toss what you don't.


----------



## dave2008 (May 14, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



It is odd to call a change and new content lazy when just rehashing the old content would be less work.

Also, what do mean by PG horror?  PG can be pretty intense these days!


----------



## Professor Murder (May 14, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t know what the original canon answer is, or if it’s addressed in the new book, but I’ll tell you what explanation I’m going with: the dark powers feed on fear. To remain sated, they need victims to torment. The Darklords are their living (or unliving) avatars, through whom the dark powers enact their terrors on their victims. Yes, the Darklords are _also_ victims of the dark powers, but it’s a torment of their own choosing. They submit to the dark power they are most closely aligned with, and feed it by enacting the particular flavor of terror it desires within a domain created specifically for them, as both prison and playground. They alone within their respective domains have the power to alleviate their own suffering by making others share in it.



I always went with the headcannon of "The Dark Powers are the Shadows of the Gods" and that the Demiplane's overall rationale is inscrutable to mortal minds. That the punishments of Darklords were so widely varied in severity and proportion to their crimes gives it all a Lovecraftian air of "things beyond our understanding."


----------



## Professor Murder (May 14, 2021)

Also, just remember: Anyone not picking up this book improves your ability to get the alt cover should you want it.


----------



## dave2008 (May 14, 2021)

Professor Murder said:


> I'm looking forward to this as a longtime fan of the setting from back in 2nd ed.
> Many of the domains and darkloards were is desperate need of a refresh so I look forward to seeing the new takes.
> The stress/fear mechanics show potential and I look forward to trying them out in play.
> As I have said elsewhere, my only issue is the lack of the core. The domains as nations of sorts that had relationships with each other was something well developed in 3rd by White Wolf when they had the license. I will hold off final judgement until I read how it is all handled in the book.
> Like any book, it is a tool box. Use what you like, toss what you don't.



It sounds like what I read in another review that the Visanti can travel through the mists to other domains and act as merchants of sorts between the domains.  So I don't think they are completely cut-off.

Of course, I kind of like the independent pocket planes and I never had the "core" setting so I have no nostalgia quotient either.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Professor Murder said:


> I always went with the headcannon of "The Dark Powers are the Shadows of the Gods" and that the Demiplane's overall rationale is inscrutable to mortal minds. That the punishments of Darklords were so widely varied in severity and proportion to their crimes gives it all a Lovecraftian air of "things beyond our understanding."



That works. Personally, I find “things completely beyond our understanding” less compelling than “things we can’t completely understand.” It’s good to have an element of inscrutability, but if there aren’t at least hints to some sinister motivation, it becomes too impersonal. At least for gothic horror.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> It sounds like what I read in another review that the Visanti can travel through the mists to other domains and act as merchants of sorts between the domains.  So I don't think they are completely cut-off.



For me this sounds like a pretty perfect compromise. Travel between the domains _is_ possible, which means there would be trade and political relationships and all that good stuff. But it is all done through the Vistani. The average villager is still trapped within their domain by the mists, as are the dark lords themselves. It keeps the domains isolated, but allows bridges between them. It also makes the Vistani bearers of goods and news from beyond the borders, which I think is really cool.



dave2008 said:


> Of course, I kind of like the independent pocket planes and I never had the "core" setting so I have no nostalgia quotient either.



Yeah, same.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (May 14, 2021)

mcmillan said:


> The train is in the official book. Baker's book is different




This makes me wonder if WotC asked Keith to submit an Eberron themed idea for Van Richten's, and he submitted the train idea. Then, he decided to expand it in his own DMsGuild supplement.

And I suspect the "Dread Queen" may be none other than Queen Dannel ir'Wynarn herself, the last monarch of Cyre. Either she still (sortof) lives within Cyre, or she is the VIP passenger that the train needed to wait for, and the Dark Lord of the train.


----------



## Voadam (May 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> Any other books with stats? Did the corebook give descriptions of the dark lords, but no stats or nothing at all?
> 
> I'm getting a little inspired to stat them up and want to get as much background info as I can.  Thanks!



The 3.0 core book gave descriptions of the domains and would mention rulers and prominent figures, but did not specify who was a Dark Lord. In Lamordia you know the ruler, there is a famous doctor, and a famous monster who plagues the land, but it is not stated who the Dark Lord is. Perfect for a player intro, or for a DM to go their own way, but if you want to know more as a DM you need the 2e stuff or 3e stuff beyond the core. In 3.5 the Gazetteer series had Dark Lord and prominent figure stats in the appendices, so the Dark Lord of the Shadow Rift is a statted out CR 40 outsider.

In the 2e ones you would want things like the Realm of Terror boxed set which has some but not all statted out, Darklords, and individual modules where they show up like Ship of Horror. Some of them are small scale, a couple are literally 0-level terrible humans with a Dark Lord special power. Then you get Strahd and Azalin.


----------



## Bitbrain (May 14, 2021)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  I just love that picture of the guy with sunglasses sitting in the wheelchair.


----------



## Nilbog (May 14, 2021)

I'm not a horror fan, nor do I play 5e, but if this book is half as good as Candlekeep Mysteries, I'll be all over it, got so much inspiration from that, and it sounds like this one will be the same, and I love that alt cover


----------



## Dire Bare (May 14, 2021)

AmerginLiath said:


> Are there any mechanics where the PCs themselves may be faced with that question about their own reality? The oft-spoken 5e carousel of life and death becomes a lot more complicated when your character fears that his death may simply erase him from existence — or else send him elsewhere on the “stage.”



Not that I'm aware of.

Ravenloft inhabitants with souls or without souls . . . are not necessarily aware of their status or the fact they may be just constructs. Part of the horror is taking the young orphan who attached themselves to the party along with you to the next adventure, only for them to fade away into the mists . . . .

Or the party figures it out, and realizes a villager has been listening in to their conversations and is now horrified that they might not be a real person . . . .

What happens to the inhabitants of Ravenloft when they die, souls or no souls? I don't think it's ever been addressed, nor does it need to be.

_EDIT: A good parallel is the back half of Season 4 of "Agents of Shield", where our heroes are trapped in a matrix-style computer simulation. They aren't sure which of them is real, and which are constructs of the simulation. The inhabitants of the simulation don't know they are constructs! There is some real sadness at the end of this story arc . . . _


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

This is a sensational review, with enough detail for readers to make informed decisions without just reprinting everything whole cloth.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

The Dark Gifts sound fantastic, although it's weird advice to suggest they're for starting players. Being offered a Dark Gift to characters in crisis -- on the verge of death, or unable to get past an obstacle or needing a valuable clue  to succeed -- is a lot more interesting. At a glance, they also looks like a good way to create a simple version of lycanthropes, which is nice.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> It is not PG horror. Only if you run it for kids.
> 
> That is the beauty, your Players and GM decide the depth of horror to bring to the table.
> 
> Not just the GM laying ambush. ;-)



I intend to use this book as a toolkit throughout my regular games, where I DM for players from ages 8 through 76. The little one won't likely have the scariest stuff thrown at her, but my wife, who loves her creepy stuff and is remaking her character as a hexblood, will likely have Ravenloft-inflected experiences in almost every session, no matter the setting.

I'm especially interested in combining this book with The Hell House Beckons, for a _really_ scary haunted house for my adult groups.


----------



## Jaeger (May 14, 2021)

brimmels said:


> The famous occult detective Alanik Ray and adventuring physician Arthur Sedgwick are an example of how they're updated. While pursuing a serial killer Alanik fell from a roof, paralyzing his legs. Since his intellect has always been his greatest weapon, he still solves mysteries _*from a custom wheelchair,*_ aided by Sedgwick, who he married.




The idea of the adventuring/combat wheelchair is perhaps the best Taking the Mickey job on the hobby I have ever seen.

They're popping up everywhere. It's great.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> The idea of the adventuring/combat wheelchair is perhaps the best troll job on the hobby I have ever seen.
> 
> They're popping up everywhere. It's great.



Define “troll job”?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> For me this sounds like a pretty perfect compromise. Travel between the domains _is_ possible, which means there would be trade and political relationships and all that good stuff. But it is all done through the Vistani. The average villager is still trapped within their domain by the mists, as are the dark lords themselves. It keeps the domains isolated, but allows bridges between them. It also makes the Vistani bearers of goods and news from beyond the borders, which I think is really cool.



And, depending on the domain, also makes authorities and maybe even the common people suspicious of them, for those wanting that bit of continuity/real world element. But their core story is, IMO, a fairly heroic one.

I can see a band of Vistani traveling through domains working as a way to connect resistance cells in each domain, sharing information, the light of Ezra, resources, etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> It odd to call a change and new content lazy when just rehashing the old content would be less work.
> 
> Also, what do mean by PG horror?  PG can be pretty intense these days!



"These days?" Poltergeist scarred Generation X and was PG, so lots of parents dropped their middle schoolers off at the multiplex to see it on their own, not realizing their kids were going to get traumatized by that damned clown.


----------



## Jaeger (May 14, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Define “troll job”?



Your right - "Taking the Mickey"* is a better description - previous post edited.

_* I probably can't use the ruder expression here._


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And, depending on the domain, also makes authorities and maybe even the common people suspicious of them, for those wanting that bit of continuity/real world element. But their core story is, IMO, a fairly heroic one.
> 
> I can see a band of Vistani traveling through domains working as a way to connect resistance cells in each domain, sharing information, the light of Ezra, resources, etc.



Yeah, I love the idea that the Vistani would be at once beloved and feared. As the only means of contact with the world beyond the borders, they would bring valuable and exotic goods and stories of strange people and places. But at the same time, they are outsiders, whose loyalties you can’t be sure of.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> Your right - "Taking the Mickey"* is a better description - previous post edited.
> 
> _* I probably can't use the ruder expression here._



The implication being that it’s a joke. It isn’t.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 14, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "These days?" Poltergeist scarred Generation X and was PG, so lots of parents dropped their middle schoolers off at the multiplex to see it on their own, not realizing their kids were going to get traumatized by that damned clown.



It is funny how parents take a rating that’s literally an abbreviation for _parental guidance_ to mean “perfectly fine to show to your kids with no guidance at all.”


----------



## Kurotowa (May 14, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The Dark Gifts sound fantastic, although it's weird advice to suggest they're for starting players. Being offered a Dark Gift to characters in crisis -- on the verge of death, or unable to get past an obstacle or needing a valuable clue  to succeed -- is a lot more interesting. At a glance, they also looks like a good way to create a simple version of lycanthropes, which is nice.




Eh, depends on the Dark Gift. The ones in this book are most similar to the Theros Supernatural Gifts; a bit stronger than a feat but with a small downside as well as benefits. And those are the sort of things a lot of players will want to integrate deeply into their PC, both mechanically and narratively.

Having a Dark Gift from character creation, and of the player's choice, makes them a lot more attractive to me than some tacked on side bonus thrown at me later. I can really build around being someone who's haunted by past lives, or has a second form, or is really all-in on being a grappler with a deadly touch.


----------



## DemoMonkey (May 14, 2021)

_(Non-canonical but fun Horror seed)_

"So, the Vistani can travel through the mists?"

"Yes"

"Why? How does the Mist know?"

"It's just in their blood, I guess"

"Innnteresting. I wonder how much magic blood you could get from a Vistani. Like ... a small one."

_(Whether the PCs are stopping this, or perpetrating it, depends on the group)_


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 14, 2021)

If Gale Force 9 isn't making a version of that spirit board for those who can't afford the Beedle & Grimm's version of this book, they're missing out on what would likely be a surefire hit.

I'm also looking forward to the Etsy D&D craft folks churning out their own takes on a Ravenloft spirit board.


----------



## brimmels (May 14, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Great review. Have we ever learned why common people are stuck in the domains? Are they being punished? This part always struck me as sad.... That people of various kinds were also trapped in the domains, for nothing they had done.



That depends upon the domain, and if you're creating a domain it's something you can factor in. Some residents are part of the torture for the darklord -- they can see people living lives that they can't -- and not every citizen in every domain is miserable. Some average people are trapped, too. Some are, well, not illusions but sort of like videogame NPCs instead of real people.


----------



## brimmels (May 14, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.





dave2008 said:


> I wish I had the energy to stat up the Dark Lords and put them on DMsGuild, but I don't.  Maybe when I am up for it I will get them posted here though.
> 
> On that note: have the dark lords been given stats before?



Strahd had stats in Curse of Strahd. Some of the prior versions of Ravenloft also had stats for the darklords.


----------



## Tonguez (May 14, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> Eh, depends on the Dark Gift. The ones in this book are most similar to the Theros Supernatural Gifts; a bit stronger than a feat but with a small downside as well as benefits. And those are the sort of things a lot of players will want to integrate deeply into their PC, both mechanically and narratively.
> 
> Having a Dark Gift from character creation, and of the player's choice, makes them a lot more attractive to me than some tacked on side bonus thrown at me later. I can really build around being someone who's haunted by past lives, or has a second form, or is really all-in on being a grappler with a deadly touch.




for me the horror of a normal person gaining a Dark affliction as  they are corrupted by their experience in the Dread domains is far more interesting than having a pre generated trait where the circumstance is glossed over in a backstory or relegated to racial feat - sure Renfield is a great character, but it is Harker who faces the horror.  I want to experience David Kessler getting bitten, I want to follow Carol Anne into the TV set and I want to be like Eddie, caught in the crossfire and infected by an alien symbiote 

However the 5e version of Ravenloft is increasingly looking like its focus is on Heroic Adventures with monsters rather than actual horror - which admittedly is a side effect of the rules making PCs far too competent for good terror - spooky sure, but outright terror hmmm, I suppose thats why the fear mechanic rewards players roleplaying being scared.

That said it was a good review and some of the tools and tables do look really helpful in building adventures with Horror themes


----------



## overgeeked (May 15, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



It was never going to be anything more than PG horror or “D&D in a Halloween costume”. There’s a lot of great horror games out there.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> It was never going to be anything more than PG horror or “D&D in a Halloween costume”. There’s a lot of great horror games out there.



And Ravenloft has never been anything harder than PG horror to begin with.

Players Guide to the Sabbat, it was not.


----------



## dave2008 (May 15, 2021)

brimmels said:


> Strahd had stats in Curse of Strahd. Some of the prior versions of Ravenloft also had stats for the darklords.



I know, I have already made a beefed of version of him: Vampire Lord


----------



## Alzrius (May 15, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not a Ravenloft guru, but . . . pretty sure it's always been this way. Some of the inhabitants are "real" and have souls, others are constructs and do not . . . but they are still sentient beings, just sentient beings who can never leave Ravenloft or they would cease to exist . . .



For what it's worth, I _am_ a Ravenloft guru (even if it's been a little while since I pulled my books off the shelves), and this was never a thing that any of the game materials discussed in 2E or 3E that I recall. It was always presumed that the people in Ravenloft were all real people with souls.

Now, to be fair, the idea that some or all of the people weren't actually people was a big topic of discussion among fans of the setting. I remember a lot of talk about this on the RL mailing list back in the 90's; it's no coincidence that this very question has long been on the FAQ over on the Fraternity of Shadows website:



> *5. Are the people in Ravenloft real?*
> 
> The Dark Powers appear to be able to create entire cities' worth of people who seem as real as you or I, and who possess complete memories; this leads to the populations of some domains having "false histories" of events which took place before their land ever existed. This presents one of the deepest metaphysical conundrums of the RAVENLOFT setting: Are the people there real, or just manifestations of the Mists? This mystery becomes even more puzzling when one takes into account that several founders and darklords are also native to the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remathilis (May 15, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If Gale Force 9 isn't making a version of that spirit board for those who can't afford the Beedle & Grimm's version of this book, they're missing out on what would likely be a surefire hit.
> 
> I'm also looking forward to the Etsy D&D craft folks churning out their own takes on a Ravenloft spirit board.



Hasbro OWNS Ouija. If THEY aren't making it themselves they're leaving money on the table...


----------



## MGibster (May 15, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> It is funny how parents take a rating that’s literally an abbreviation for _parental guidance_ to mean “perfectly fine to show to your kids with no guidance at all.”



_Night of the Living Dead_ was released in 1968, just one month before the modern MPAA ratings went into effect, and children were able to walk up to the box office and purchase tickets for it.  Roger Ebert wrote that it was a completely inappropriate movie for young children and castigated theaters for allowing them to see the movie.  But for years it had been pretty common for parents to let their kids go to the theater and watch cheesy horror movies at the matinee.  For parents who might have gone to see _The Creature from the Black Lagoon_ when they were kids or teenagers in the 50s they probably just figured anything rated PG would be fine.


----------



## MGibster (May 15, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> However the 5e version of Ravenloft is increasingly looking like its focus is on Heroic Adventures with monsters rather than actual horror - which admittedly is a side effect of the rules making PCs far too competent for good terror - spooky sure, but outright terror hmmm, I suppose thats why the fear mechanic rewards players roleplaying being scared.



Which is just fine for me.  I've never thought of Ravenloft as being particularly scary and I say that as someone who enjoys horror and for whom Ravenloft is his favorite setting.  I don't expect hard core horror here and I can enjoy for what it is.  


Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, I _am_ a Ravenloft guru (even if it's been a little while since I pulled my books off the shelves), and this was never a thing that any of the game materials discussed in 2E or 3E that I recall. It was always presumed that the people in Ravenloft were all real people with souls.



I can't recall anything about souless citizens of Barovia until Curse of Strahd.  And in CoS it was something that was mentioned but it didn't have any impact on the game.  It just didn't come up in either campaigns I ran.


----------



## Ath-kethin (May 15, 2021)

MGibster said:


> _Night of the Living Dead_ was released in 1968, just one month before the modern MPAA ratings went into effect, and children were able to walk up to the box office and purchase tickets for it.  Roger Ebert wrote that it was a completely inappropriate movie for young children and castigated theaters for allowing them to see the movie.  But for years it had been pretty common for parents to let their kids go to the theater and watch cheesy horror movies at the matinee.  For parents who might have gone to see _The Creature from the Black Lagoon_ when they were kids or teenagers in the 50s they probably just figured anything rated PG would be fine.



It's also true that the PG-13 rating didn't even exist until 1984, so Poltergeist would be either PG or R. And it's closer to PG film than it is to an early-80s R film.


----------



## MGibster (May 15, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> It's also true that the PG-13 rating didn't even exist until 1984, so Poltergeist would be either PG or R. And it's closer to PG film than it is to an early-80s R film.



Rumor has it that _Poltergeist_ was going to receive an R rating until Spielberg did some schmoozing with some folks from the MPAA.  But you make a valid point.  If the _Bad News Bears _(1976) was released today I bet it'd get an R rating. The remake from 2005 was PG-13 but it struck me as being tamer than the original.


----------



## Tonguez (May 15, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, I _am_ a Ravenloft guru (even if it's been a little while since I pulled my books off the shelves), and this was never a thing that any of the game materials discussed in 2E or 3E that I recall. It was always presumed that the people in Ravenloft were all real people with souls.
> 
> Now, to be fair, the idea that some or all of the people weren't actually people was a big topic of discussion among fans of the setting. I remember a lot of talk about this on the RL mailing list back in the 90's; it's no coincidence that this very question has long been on the FAQ over on the Fraternity of Shadows website:




I wonder if thats where I got my idea of Elfs as Mist-forms who must steal the souls of the living in order to gain on Substance. I’ve run a couple of PC encounters with Elfs in the mist, where they get caught in the mist and their life-eesence drained so that a Mistform can become solid.

Having Ravenloft being populated by Mistforms who have absorbed the souls of the living creatures taken by the Drak Powers could be an added level of dreadfulness 



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And Ravenloft has never been anything harder than PG horror to begin with.
> 
> Players Guide to the Sabbat, it was not.




When I first saw the 1922 Nosferatu movie at a film festival I was amazed and just how terrifying the use of shadow and drama could be - even without sound. It portrayed the bleak psychological melodrama which is characteristic of good Gothic Horror and which the old Ravenloft products were attempting to invoke. That doesnt make it PG Horror though, it makes it Gothic themed - something the new product has diminished.


----------



## Ath-kethin (May 15, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Rumor has it that _Poltergeist_ was going to receive an R rating until Spielberg did some schmoozing with some folks from the MPAA.  But you make a valid point.  If the _Bad News Bears _(1976) was released today I bet it'd get an R rating. The remake from 2005 was PG-13 but it struck me as being tamer than the original.



It's actually amazing how much the PG-13 rating had to do with Spielberg all around; Poltergeist, Gremlins, and The Temple of Doom are all Spielberg projects, and are the films most often cited as the respond or the new rating.

But we are off topic a bit now, I think.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 15, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> It's also true that the PG-13 rating didn't even exist until 1984, so Poltergeist would be either PG or R. And it's closer to PG film than it is to an early-80s R film.



I feel like PG-13 was created as a direct response to people treating PG like it meant “no parental guidance necessary.”


----------



## Tonguez (May 15, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I feel like PG-13 was created as a direct response to people treating PG like it meant “no parental guidance necessary.”



The history of the PG rating is really a fascinating look at changing family dynamics and the understanding of ‘childhood’ in US/Western culture.

We tend to forget both that Cinema has only been a thing for 120 years and that the Teenager as a category is a post WW2 phenomena (before that you were a child until you got a job, then you were an adult).

Marketers and film makers followed suit targeting Cinema to either Teens/Young Adults or ‘Family’.   Its only with 1980 (& later 70s) that the Pre-teen category was created and with it the move for older children to do more teen-like things - like be driopped off at the cinema (simultaneous infantilization and maturification(?)). which is what lead eventually to Gremlins and Indiana Jones being PG-13


----------



## Pauper (May 15, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, I _am_ a Ravenloft guru (even if it's been a little while since I pulled my books off the shelves), and this was never a thing that any of the game materials discussed in 2E or 3E that I recall. It was always presumed that the people in Ravenloft were all real people with souls.



For additional support for this point, note that every edition of Ravenloft has altered how magic works within the Dread Realms, including the Raise Dead spell, yet no version of Ravenloft I'm aware of has made it impossible or an auto-fail to cast Raise Dead on a native of Ravenloft. (Casting Raise Dead has, in pretty much every edition of Ravenloft, provoked a Powers Check, which suggests that the Dark Powers view those who cast Raise Dead as susceptible to the temptation of power which leads to corruption.)

This is especially significant for Ravenloft during AD&D 2nd edition, as at that time, full-blooded elves could not actually be brought back to live via Raise Dead and required a Resurrection spell to be brought back to life. If Raise Dead had a similar restriction on natives of the Demiplane of Dread, the rules for how the spell operates in Ravenloft would likely have noted it.

tl;dr: If you can cast Raise Dead on it, then it has a soul.

--
Pauper


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 15, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I know, I have already made a beefed of version of him: Vampire Lord



I do think there is room for WotC to develop some templates and guidance to help DMs who aren't as confident as thee and me beef up monsters to higher CRs.

Not specific to Ravenloft though.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (May 15, 2021)

Pauper said:


> tl;dr: If you can cast Raise Dead on it, then it has a soul.




Or maybe that's what the Dark Powers want you to think. Perhaps they are twisting the magic of Raise Dead in such a way to reanimate their damaged soulless husks, but making it look like an actual Raise Dead, in order to tempt the caster into further acts of hubris.


----------



## Stormonu (May 15, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I wish I had the energy to stat up the Dark Lords and put them on DMsGuild, but I don't.  Maybe when I am up for it I will get them posted here though.
> 
> On that note: have the dark lords been given stats before?



This DM's Guild product has several of the Dark Lords statted up for 5E.


----------



## Remathilis (May 15, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Or maybe that's what the Dark Powers want you to think. Perhaps they are twisting the magic of Raise Dead in such a way to reanimate their damaged soulless husks, but making it look like an actual Raise Dead, in order to tempt the caster into further acts of hubris.



Ain't that basically one option for the reborn?


----------



## Grantypants (May 15, 2021)

Is there guidance in the book on how to run a campaign that hops around between lots of Dread Domains? I saw something about how the Vistani can travel through the mists, but is that meant to be a big part of the overall setting, or just an excuse for DMs to switch from zombies to mummies when their players get bored?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 15, 2021)

Grantypants said:


> Is there guidance in the book on how to run a campaign that hops around between lots of Dread Domains? I saw something about how the Vistani can travel through the mists, but is that meant to be a big part of the overall setting, or just an excuse for DMs to switch from zombies to mummies when their players get bored?



There are backgrounds and Dark Gifts that make the PCs more adept at travelling through the mist. Indeed one of the Dark Gifts compels the character to move between domains on a regular basis.


----------



## Pauper (May 15, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Or maybe that's what the Dark Powers want you to think. Perhaps they are twisting the magic of Raise Dead in such a way to reanimate their damaged soulless husks, but making it look like an actual Raise Dead, in order to tempt the caster into further acts of hubris.



That's actually covered -- the target of Raise Dead has to make a check (in AD&D, this was a system shock roll, while in Ravenloft 3E this was a Fortitude save). Failing the check means that the subject comes back as an undead creature (of the DM's/Dark Powers' choice).

Plus there's the aforementioned Powers Check for the caster, which if the caster fails, puts her on the path of becoming a Darklord herself.

Of course, if you wanted your game to be darker, you could certainly make these checks harder, or even impossible...

--
Pauper


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 15, 2021)

Pauper said:


> tl;dr: If you can cast Raise Dead on it, then it has a soul.



The Dark Powers are thrilled that you assume what animates a corpse after you cast Raise Dead on it in Ravenloft is actually the person who died.


----------



## MarkB (May 15, 2021)

Pauper said:


> tl;dr: If you can cast Raise Dead on it, then it has a soul.



Then again, Raise Dead isn't 100% successful even on people with a soul - there's that "soul must be free and willing to return" caveat. If you cast Raise Dead on an NPC and it fails, there's no easy way of telling whether it's because their soul is otherwise occupied, or because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Alzrius (May 15, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Then again, Raise Dead isn't 100% successful even on people with a soul - there's that "soul must be free and willing to return" caveat. If you cast Raise Dead on an NPC and it fails, there's no easy way of telling whether it's because their soul is otherwise occupied, or because it doesn't exist.



Wasn't that aspect of life-restoring magic only added in 3rd Edition?


----------



## LongTimeLurker (May 15, 2021)

Oh, so it's Ravenloft: Disney Edition. Thanks for the in depth review/preview. It really helped me to decide to let this book stay at the store.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> Oh, so it's Ravenloft: Disney Edition. Thanks for the in depth review/preview. It really helped me to decide to let this book stay at the store.



You do you of course, but I’m curious what in the review gave you that impression?


----------



## LongTimeLurker (May 15, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> You do you of course, but I’m curious what in the review gave you that impression?



session zero, x card and the whole "don't make it too scary" vibe.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> session zero, x card



Session zero is just a smart thing to do for any RPG. Safety tools like X-cards, I’d consider a good indication that it’s potentially serious horror. You wouldn’t need safety tools if it was “Disney.”


LongTimeLurker said:


> and the whole "don't make it too scary" vibe.



I didn’t get that vibe from the review at all.


----------



## MGibster (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> session zero, x card and the whole "don't make it too scary" vibe.



I'll never use X-Cards in my game as I don't believe D&D is an inherently dangerous activity that requires the use of safe words or gestures.  If I ever get to that point then I'm going to grab a Ouji Board and apologize to Pat Pulling.  However, I do appreciate horror games that take the time to discuss with the players and DM how best to provide everyone with a fun experience.  And Ravenloft has never, ever been a particularly scary setting to me.  The scariest part of the original I-6 Ravenloft module was when those wights started draining levels.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 15, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I didn’t get that vibe from the review at all.



Especially when the book says "Scare, don't scar". Scaring is a big part of horror settings like Ravenloft. They just don't want any real world harm done to the players, which is the point of having a Session 0 and other safety tools.


----------



## Remathilis (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> session zero, x card and the whole "don't make it too scary" vibe.



Aka: screw what my players want, I'll use and abuse them as I see fit.


----------



## LongTimeLurker (May 15, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> Aka: screw what my players want, I'll use and abuse them as I see fit.



That's one assumption you could make. But since you don't know a thing about me maybe you should take your base speculation and stick it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## LongTimeLurker (May 15, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Session zero is just a smart thing to do for any RPG. Safety tools like X-cards, I’d consider a good indication that it’s potentially serious horror. You wouldn’t need safety tools if it was “Disney.”
> 
> I didn’t get that vibe from the review at all.



See, i don't game with immature people or children. Therefore, I have no use for such tools. And, quite frankly, i find the x card to be rather pathetic.


----------



## Morrus (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> That's one assumption you could make. But since you don't know a thing about me maybe you should take your base speculation and stick it where the sun don't shine.



Reporting people and then insulting them is sub-optimal. Don't do that.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 15, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> See, i don't game with immature people or children. Therefore, I have no use for such tools.



If you game with people who have experienced serious trauma, their age and maturity are irrelevant. If they unexpectedly encounter trauma triggers at your game, that can be harmful, regardless of how old they are or how mature they are. Now, if you game with a group of people you know well, and know haven’t experienced such trauma (or who you know have and know how to avoid triggering it), you might not need these tools. That is fortunate for you and your group. Not everyone has that luxury. For those who play with people they are not so intimately familiar with, these tools can be quite useful.


LongTimeLurker said:


> And, quite frankly, i find the x card to be rather pathetic.



If you can’t appreciate the potential value of safety tools that you, personally, don’t have need of, I think that only displays a lack of empathy on your part.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> See, i don't game with immature people or children. Therefore, I have no use for such tools. And, quite frankly, i find the x card to be rather pathetic.



IMO, it is a mature group of gamers that is willing to talk and discuss their gaming.  I don't typically run horror, but my group still talks about our upcoming campaigns and what we want it to be like.  I find it very odd that you think taking other peoples thoughts and feelings into consideration as being immature.


----------



## Azzy (May 16, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> Oh, so it's Ravenloft: Disney Edition. Thanks for the in depth review/preview. It really helped me to decide to let this book stay at the store.



How very edge-lordy.


----------



## MGibster (May 16, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> See, i don't game with immature people or children. Therefore, I have no use for such tools. And, quite frankly, i find the x card to be rather pathetic.



As I said earlier, I'm not fan of the X-Card, but I've never thought that those who use them were immature.  Honestly, it's odd for any one of us who plays a pretend game with elves to point the finger at someone else and declare them to be immature.  Sitting down and talking to your players about what they might want to avoid seeing in a horror game demonstrates that you respect them which is a sign of maturity I think.


----------



## JEB (May 16, 2021)

That's a new look for orcs. Ravenloft's orcs must be different, I guess.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 16, 2021)

JEB said:


> That's a new look for orcs. Ravenloft's orcs must be different, I guess.



That is one of the first green orcs that we've seen in 5e, and he is quite skinny, but this fits the change of art that's been happening since Tasha's came out. Tasha's had two pieces of Orc artwork in it, this Rune Knight:



This Four-Elements Monk: 



And this Magical-Tattoo Artist:




All of them are very muscular in comparison to a typical human, but have noticeably less bulk than the Orcs in the Monster Manual and Volo's, and they're also a much lighter skin tone (which has been applied to Drow as well). The second one looks a bit green, but not as much as the one in VRGtR. 

I like the Orc art, but it is a pretty big directional change. It almost looks like they're Half-Orcs. I'm not complaining (I'm a big fan of the Elder Scrolls' version of Orcs, which look quite similar to this more recent art), and I actually think the art is quite good, I'm just pointing it the recent change.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

JEB said:


> That's a new look for orcs. Ravenloft's orcs must be different, I guess.



Yeah, I would have assumed half-orc, if it weren’t for the text in the bottom left identifying him as an orc.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> That is the first green orc that we've seen in 5e,



Is he green? He looks gray to me, maybe with greenish undertones, but the lighting in the picture makes it hard to tell for sure.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> and he is quite skinny, but this fits the change of art that's been happening since Tasha's came out. Tasha's had two pieces of Orc artwork in it, this Rune Knight:
> View attachment 136998
> And this Magical-Tattoo Artist:
> View attachment 136999
> ...



Agreed, it looks quite cool, but it’s definitely a new direction. A good direction, in my opinion. I wonder if they’re going to quietly stop referring to characters as half-orcs and just give orcs a wider range of body types.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Is he green? He looks gray to me, maybe with greenish undertones, but the lighting in the picture makes it hard to tell for sure.




The art still isn't 100% consistent. If you look at Tasha's p48, the start of the Monk section, there's a character identified as an "Orc Monk" who's significantly greener in hue than the very pale grey ones in the rest of the book.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Is he green? He looks gray to me, maybe with greenish undertones, but the lighting in the picture makes it hard to tell for sure.



IDK. Looks green to me, but it could be the lighting, or it could be my eyes playing tricks on me. Maybe they're taking a note from Fjord from Critical Role (even though he's a half-orc, but he is very green)? 


Charlaquin said:


> Agreed, it looks quite cool, but it’s definitely a new direction. A good direction, in my opinion. I wonder if they’re going to quietly stop referring to characters as half-orcs and just give orcs a wider range of body types.



I agree as well. It makes them look more human (which, of course, will be a reason why some people will complain about it).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 16, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> The art still isn't 100% consistent. If you look at Tasha's p48, the start of the Monk section, there's a character identified as an "Orc Monk" who's significantly greener in hue than the very pale grey ones in the rest of the book.



Ah. I missed that one. I added it to my post and edited it to include it.


----------



## darjr (May 16, 2021)

Can’t wait for this book


----------



## bedir than (May 16, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> The art still isn't 100% consistent. If you look at Tasha's p48, the start of the Monk section, there's a character identified as an "Orc Monk" who's significantly greener in hue than the very pale grey ones in the rest of the book.



Why would you expect the skin color of orcs to be consistent throughout various world or even continents?


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> That is one of the first green orcs that we've seen in 5e, and he is quite skinny, but this fits the change of art that's been happening since Tasha's came out. Tasha's had two pieces of Orc artwork in it, this Rune Knight:
> View attachment 136998
> This Four-Elements Monk:
> View attachment 137004
> ...



The tattoo artist & client reminds me of a scene from one of the later seasons of angel that took place in the other world that made his vampire nature look .uch more pronounced similar to the client where he's shown briefly getting a tattoo or something in a scene like that


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

bedir than said:


> Why would you expect the skin color of orcs to be consistent throughout various world or even continents?



The same reason as all humans have the same skin colour...


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> IMO, it is a mature group of gamers that is willing to talk and discuss their gaming.  I don't typically run horror, but my group still talks about our upcoming campaigns and what we want it to be like.  I find it very odd that you think taking other peoples thoughts and feelings into consideration as being immature.



The X-Card is has worse design flaws than some Magic The Gathering cards, because it encourages anybody ito stop any scene for anything whatsoever, with zero explanations to anybody even the GM. 

The only way it works is if everybody at the table is already mature enough to respect everybody else.

A 14 year old prankster at your table can simply tap the X-Card in the middle of combat for no reason whatsoever and stop another Player's action  or in the middle of another Player's very interesting dialog,, sort of cutting conversation mid-sentence. 

Rules lawyers can also abuse it because rules as written, the X-Card is more broken than some older D&D spells. 

A revised and updated  X-Card could offer better wording on its use, sadly, those who promote it quite often quote John Stavropuolous, whose personal philosophy does not seem include requirements for explanations for interrupting other people.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Especially when the book says "Scare, don't scar".



That's not very helpful for a dyslexic!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The only way it works is if everybody at the table is already mature enough to respect everybody else.



I would never play with anyone who wasn't.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I would never play with anyone who wasn't.



Gatekeeling then? 

At a public convention with strangers you can never know how everyone will behave at your table until you actually play with them, and yes, some can abuse that X-Card, unless the GM personally change its rules and demands a private out-of-earshot explanation for X-Card triggering.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Gatekeeling then?



I don't think that's what people usually mean by "gatekeeping", but if you mean "someone who plays D&D with their friends", then sure.


imagineGod said:


> At a public convention with strangers



I wouldn't be caught dead at a public convention. My idea of hell!


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't think that's what people usually mean by "gatekeeping", but if you mean "someone who plays D&D with their friends", then sure.
> 
> I wouldn't be caught dead at a public convention. My idea of hell!



That is pretty privileged. Not everybody has friends who also play role playing games.

That is why Adventurers League is a lifeline to many too.

Also some people forget that the role of DM is also that of referee. So a DM should have the Players respect to be told in confidence, even if briefly, why any Player arbitrarily stops play. You cannot referee without knowledge.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Anyway, I think I will stop this conversation too. Everytime something is posted online with strangers, quotations, then to and fro comments eventually lead to name calling and hostility.


----------



## MGibster (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> That is pretty privileged. Not everybody has friends who also play role playing games.



I think we're stretching the definition of privileged here.  I suspect the majority of people who play D&D are doing so with their friends or acquaintances rather than a group of strangers they don't know.  



imagineGod said:


> That is why Adventurers League is a lifeline to many too.



Which requires a certain amount of privilege, no?  You've got to find a store or other venue nearby running events, you've got to find a DM with the patience to contact the organizers and get all the codes needed to download the material needed to run adventures, and you've got to find a DM willing to run games for people he or she doesn't necessarily know very well.  

I don't play Adventure League but I used to play/run a lot of Living Greyhawk games back in the day.  And you're right, it was a lifeline for me when I moved to a new area and didn't know another soul who played D&D.  It's been about 20 years since I first played Living Greyhawk and I'm still gaming with some of those people today.


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I think we're stretching the definition of privileged here.  I suspect the majority of people who play D&D are doing so with their friends or acquaintances rather than a group of strangers they don't know.
> 
> 
> Which requires a certain amount of privilege, no?  You've got to find a store or other venue nearby running events, you've got to find a DM with the patience to contact the organizers and get all the codes needed to download the material needed to run adventures, and you've got to find a DM willing to run games for people he or she doesn't necessarily know very well.
> ...



I think you may be overestimating what is involved
by far, far, 



Spoiler: too much




Tasha's Cauldron of Everything Guidance
Dungeoncraft Adventures: Plague of Ancients
D&D Adventurers League Seasonal FAQ
D&D Adventurers League Seasonal Player's Guide v10.3
D&D Adventurers League Seasonal Content Catalogue v10.0
D&D Adventurers League Logsheet
D&D Adventurers League Seasonal DM's Guide v10.0
D&D Adventurers League Masters Player's Guide v1.0
D&D Adventurers League Masters Content Catalogue v1.1
D&D Adventurers League Oracle of War Player's Guide v1.5
D&D Adventurers League Oracle of War DM's Guide v1.5
D&D Adventurers League Historic Campaign Player's Guide v1.0




Want to run an AL game?  download the aldmg, run the game using a hardcover or a few approved dmsguild titles.  Keep a log sheet of your GM'ing if you care to claim AL GM rewards at another AL table & think the GM might actually stop you.  Somewhere in there find some players.

If you don't have players you can probably show up to AL night at a FLGS & ask one of the GM's if there is room for one more gm either at a different table or on a different night.  Once you start GM'ing you should pretty quickly wind up with more players than you could possibly GM if you are at all competent*.

*even mildly kinda sorta ok  is good enough.  players outnumber GM's by many orders of magnitude


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Gatekeeling then?



No, just normal social dynamics. A person who doesn’t respect others is not likely to be welcome in a cooperative group leisure activity.


imagineGod said:


> At a public convention with strangers you can never know how everyone will behave at your table until you actually play with them, and yes, some can abuse that X-Card, unless the GM personally change its rules and demands a private out-of-earshot explanation for X-Card triggering.



I think the risk that someone might abuse the tool is outweighed by the risk that someone might get hurt without it.

I’m not saying the X card is perfect, but if you’re more concerned about people using it to get a gameplay advantage than about risking people’s emotional wellbeing by not using it with a group you’re not familiar with (especially when dealing with horror themes), I think your priorities could use some re-evaluation.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I think the risk that someone might abuse the tool is outweighed by the risk that someone might get hurt without it.
> 
> I’m not saying the X card is perfect, but if you’re more concerned about people using it to get a gameplay advantage than about risking people’s emotional wellbeing, I think your priorities could use some adjustment.



Maybe I misread their post but it looked like the were advocating for X-card, just "a revised and updated" take on it.

That said the flaws noted seem... unlikely to come up...


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Maybe I misread their post but it looked like the were advocating for X-card, just "a revised and updated" take on it.



Oh, if that was the intent then yeah. Go for it!


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, if that was the intent then yeah. Go for it!



Pretty sure it was.  The x-card & such we saw pre-VGR being so strongly structured with _don't even ask & your a bad person if you try_ type guidance assumes that the only person at the table deserving of the ability to provide informed consent.  From what we've seen of VGR it looks like there _might_ be a somewhat more meaningful  spin in some areas, but we probbaly won't see better tools for a few weeks/months


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> No, just normal social dynamics. A person who doesn’t respect others is not likely to be welcome in a cooperative group leisure activity.
> 
> I think the risk that someone might abuse the tool is outweighed by the risk that someone might get hurt without it.
> 
> I’m not saying the X card is perfect, but if you’re more concerned about people using it to get a gameplay advantage than about risking people’s emotional wellbeing by not using it with a group you’re not familiar with (especially when dealing with horror themes), I think your priorities could use some re-evaluation.



Can people stop with personal attacks please. You can make a point without questioning my own priorities. 

How would you feel if I  said your own priorities need evaluation if you bring a tool that one Player uses to ruin the fun for the whole table? 

Magic The Gathering cards get nerfed for such game breaking reasons, so I suggested tools that are broken need revision. Never said the initially concept was bad.


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> No, just normal social dynamics. A person who doesn’t respect others is not likely to be welcome in a cooperative group leisure activity.
> 
> I think the risk that someone might abuse the tool is outweighed by the risk that someone might get hurt without it.
> 
> I’m not saying the X card is perfect, but if you’re more concerned about people using it to get a gameplay advantage than about risking people’s emotional wellbeing by not using it with a group you’re not familiar with (especially when dealing with horror themes), I think your priorities could use some re-evaluation.



Besides, someone clearly abusing the X card in that way is kinda obvious. And also good grounds for booting them from the game.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Can people stop with personal attacks please. You can make a point without questioning my own priorities.



I didn’t mean it as a personal attack, but I’m sorry if that’s how it came across.


imagineGod said:


> How would you feel if I  said your own priorities need evaluation if you bring a tool that one Player uses to ruin the fun for the whole table?



I think that would be a reasonable thing to express, and I would say that I feel pretty well justified in prioritizing player safety over gameplay.


imagineGod said:


> Magic The Gathering cards get nerfed for such game breaking reasons, so I suggested tools that are broken need revision. Never said the initially concept was bad.



The comparison to magic cards seems like a very strange one to me. Magic cards are game pieces and collectors items. The X-card is a safety tool. It has more in common with a helmet than with a magic card.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I didn’t mean it as a personal attack, but I’m sorry if that’s how it came across.
> 
> I think that would be a reasonable thing to express, and I would say that I feel pretty well justified in prioritizing player safety over gameplay.
> 
> The comparison to magic cards seems like a very strange one to me. Magic cards are game pieces and collectors items. The X-card is a safety tool. It has more in common with a helmet than with a magic card.



The X-Card is not a helmet unless you never read its rules. It is like a badly designed magic card with rules that allow any Player at the table to tap it and totally nerf any other Player's few minutes in the spotlight.

Unlike Magic The Gathering cards that when discovered to be unbalanced in play thus, revised or nerfed, the creator of the X-Card seems adamant in refusing to issue corrections. It is really a small fix, one that would unequivocally state no single Player is more important than any other. So tapping the X-Card should not offer Carte Blanche power to any one Player against all others, else everyone starts tapping to leverage that power first.

And if everyone is already mature enough not to abuse the X-Card as a power booster,  those are probably mature enough to respect boundaries without the card.

So ironically, the immature Players who abuse it are the people whose behavior the X-Card is expected to regulate.


----------



## MGibster (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> The comparison to magic cards seems like a very strange one to me. Magic cards are game pieces and collectors items. The X-card is a safety tool. It has more in common with a helmet than with a magic card.



I don't know about anyone else here, but I only wear a helmet when engaging in activities where there is a better than average risk of catastrophic injury.  When exactly did D&D become so dangerous that we needed something comparable to a helmet?


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't know about anyone else here, but I only wear a helmet when engaging in activities where there is a better than average risk of catastrophic injury.  When exactly did D&D become so dangerous that we needed something comparable to a helmet?



When humans with traumas started playing a game of pure imagination where anything could happen. So day one. We've needed safety tools from the beginning. No one thought to include them until recently. Simply because they were overlooked for decades does not mean they're forever unnecessary. The automobile was invented in 1886, but seat belts were not mandatory until relatively recently, the 1980s in the US, but no one reasonable would argue against their use now.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't know about anyone else here, but I only wear a helmet when engaging in activities where there is a better than average risk of catastrophic injury.  When exactly did D&D become so dangerous that we needed something comparable to a helmet?




When I was an active fencer, you didn't cross swords without a mask and padded jacket on. Not because you were trying to genuinely hurt each other, but for safety, because accidents happen. These tools are the same. Saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to manly-men who know no weakness is how someone loses an eye (or a friendship).

Are they needed? I mean, the Internet has no shortage of gaming horror stories from when things went wrong. Not always because someone was being malicious, but just because people don't always understands boundaries and triggers well. Especially us geeks with our sometimes spotty social skills.

The summer I worked at a roofing tile factory, I was required to wear a helmet and steel toed boots and ear plugs. Not because accidents were expected, but because accidents are by their nature unpredictable and the cost of using a few basic safety measures so outweighed the potential harm of NOT being protected when you needed to be. It's the same risk calculation here. Overblown handwringing about people abusing the X-Card aside, the cost of using these tools is low and the potential harm they can mitigate is high.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> When I was an active fencer, you didn't cross swords without a mask and padded jacket on. Not because you were trying to genuinely hurt each other, but for safety, because accidents happen. These tools are the same. Saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to manly-men who know no weakness is how someone loses an eye (or a friendship).
> 
> Are they needed? I mean, the Internet has no shortage of gaming horror stories from when things went wrong. Not always because someone was being malicious, but just because people don't always understands boundaries and triggers well. Especially us geeks with our sometimes spotty social skills.
> 
> The summer I worked at a roofing tile factory, I was required to wear a helmet and steel toed boots and ear plugs. Not because accidents were expected, but because accidents are by their nature unpredictable and the cost of using a few basic safety measures so outweighed the potential harm of NOT being protected when you needed to be. It's the same risk calculation here. Overblown handwringing about people abusing the X-Card aside, the cost of using these tools is low and the potential harm they can mitigate is high.



I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel. 

I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.


----------



## Rikka66 (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel.
> 
> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.




They've made it very clear they are not nearly as concerned about the potential for abuse as you are.

Also, this Magic the Gathering metaphor you keep using is not nearly the slam dunk you seem to think it is.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.




One, I think you've overblowing the potential for abuse. Two, if someone _is_ deploying it like that, then it's pretty obvious and you kick them from the group on the "Boy who cried wolf" principle.

I mean honestly, look at the last year of real life. Decrying safety measures because they're "taking away muh freedoms" doesn't exactly carry a lot of weight for me anymore, you know?


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel.
> 
> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.



Maybe because no one else is worried about "abuse" or the "DM losing power" in the way you are? 

If a player needs to use the X-card to prevent the DM from stumbling into their traumas or phobias, then great. That's literally what it's for. If a player just starts tapping the X-card to derail anything and everything happening in game, then that player is clearly there in bad faith and needs to be booted from the game. Yes, clearly a player can just start tapping the card. It's meant to be used. When a player starts abusing the X-card, then it's time to remove the player, not the X-card.

Nothing will ever be perfect. We shouldn't put off using safety tools until they're perfect. That will never happen. That's like saying that early seat belts in cars shouldn't have been implemented because they weren't better designed. They're better designed now than they were when implemented, but we also know science and tech advances over time, so should we never implement seat belts because they will improve over time? That's the "don't do it until it's perfect" argument. It's a really bad argument.


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel.
> 
> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.



Abuse of the X-Card isn't something I've even seen come up in discussions before now. I get the idea that it's possible, but is it really so prevalent that it needs to be policed, potentially at the expense of its effectiveness in the situations it's intended to mitigate?

Disruptive players will find ways to be disruptive, X-Card or not.


----------



## Sithlord (May 16, 2021)

jgsugden said:


> Consider the type of Horror Ravenloft represents.
> 
> Gothic Horror.
> 
> ...



The beauty of ravenloft was you could add or create a new domain with ease. Especially on the isles of mist. I loved doing that too.


----------



## MGibster (May 16, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> When I was an active fencer, you didn't cross swords without a mask and padded jacket on. Not because you were trying to genuinely hurt each other, but for safety, because accidents happen. These tools are the same. Saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to manly-men who know no weakness is how someone loses an eye (or a friendship).



Yes.  Fencing is one of those activities that carries with it an elevated risk of causing harm to the participants so it makes sense to wear safety equipment to mitigate said risks.  Nobody's saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to manly-men who know no weakness.  Or at least I'm not saying it.  What I am saying is that D&D is not an inherently dangerous activity that requires the use of a safe word.  



Kurotowa said:


> Are they needed? I mean, the Internet has no shortage of gaming horror stories from when things went wrong. Not always because someone was being malicious, but just because people don't always understands boundaries and triggers well. Especially us geeks with our sometimes spotty social skills.



The vast majority of those internet gaming horror stories don't involve people who don't understand boundaries or social cues.  Almost all of them involve jerks deliberately behaving like jerks.  



Kurotowa said:


> The summer I worked at a roofing tile factory, I was required to wear a helmet and steel toed boots and ear plugs. Not because accidents were expected, but because accidents are by their nature unpredictable and the cost of using a few basic safety measures so outweighed the potential harm of NOT being protected when you needed to be. It's the same risk calculation here. Overblown handwringing about people abusing the X-Card aside, the cost of using these tools is low and the potential harm they can mitigate is high.



And once again, a factory is a hazardous environment which warrants special equipment and rules of behavior to mitigate the risks of physical harm.  I categorically reject the idea that D&D is a dangerous social environment that warrants safety tools.  Should we carry X-Cards in other areas of our life and flag people every time they say something that might trigger us?  If not, why not?  And please note, as far as the X-Card goes I'm not particularly concerned about players abusing it. Jerks often use social conventions as a club or a shield and I can't blame the X-Card for that.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Abuse of the X-Card isn't something I've even seen come up in discussions before now. I get the idea that it's possible, but is it really so prevalent that it needs to be policed, potentially at the expense of its effectiveness in the situations it's intended to mitigate?
> 
> Disruptive players will find ways to be disruptive, X-Card or not.



Except a disruptive Player without the X-Card can get a talking to by the DM. 

With the X-Card, reading its rules as written, a DM cannot use any evidence of disruption, because as written the X-Card prevents the questioning of why it was triggered. So a disruptive Player can stop another Player's character mid-sentence, and nobody is allowed to question why, even the DM cannot question why. 

So once again, ironically, the X-Card that is a safety tool, itself has no safety rules to protect it from abuse and ruin the entertainment for everyone else at the table.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't know about anyone else here, but I only wear a helmet when engaging in activities where there is a better than average risk of catastrophic injury. When exactly did D&D become so dangerous that we needed something comparable to a helmet?



There are people who have disabilities that make wearing a helmet during everyday activities is in fact warranted. There are also people who have had traumatic experiences that make D&D a potentially dangerous activity for them, and there is no way to identify these people visually. So as I’ve said before, if you’re gaming with a group of people you know well and know don’t need it, great. But not everyone has that option. When playing with people you don’t know so intimately, these sorts of tools are useful, especially when dealing with horror themes.


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Except a disruptive Player without the X-Card can get a talking to by the DM.
> 
> With the X-Card, reading its rules as written, a DM cannot use any evidence of disruption, because as written the X-Card prevents the questioning of why it was triggered. So a disruptive Player can stop another Player's character mid-sentence, and nobody is allowed to question why, even the DM cannot question why.
> 
> So once again, ironically, the X-Card that is a safety tool, itself has no safety rules to protect it from abuse and ruin the entertainment for everyone else at the table.



You understand why there's a requirement for no discussion, right? Because the whole point of the X-Card is so that someone doesn't have to go through the details of that trauma again, and asking them to explain requires them to do precisely that.

How would you propose amending it while keeping that provision intact?


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

MarkB said:


> You understand why there's a requirement for no discussion, right? Because the whole point of the X-Card is so that someone doesn't have to go through the details of that trauma again, and asking them to explain requires them to do precisely that.
> 
> How would you propose amending it while keeping that provision intact?



Imagine if the emergency brake on the train is free from questions, and any teenager or adult can trigger it  for any reason whatever, stopping the journey of all other passengers on that train.

Imagine if a law protects anyone stopping a train for any reason even a joke since no questions can be asked Who is being protected then?

That is how the X-Card rules are written. Clueless to real world social responsibility.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The X-Card is not a helmet unless you never read its rules. It is like a badly designed magic card with rules that allow any Player at the table to tap it and totally nerf any other Player's few minutes in the spotlight.
> 
> Unlike Magic The Gathering cards that when discovered to be unbalanced in play thus, revised or nerfed, the creator of the X-Card seems adamant in refusing to issue corrections. It is really a small fix, one that would unequivocally state no single Player is more important than any other. So tapping the X-Card should not offer Carte Blanche power to any one Player against all others, else everyone starts tapping to leverage that power first.



You seem to have completely missed the point of the analogy. Again, the X-card isn’t like a magic card because it isn’t a collectible item or a game piece. It’s like a helmet because it’s a safety tool.


imagineGod said:


> And if everyone is already mature enough not to abuse the X-Card as a power booster,  those are probably mature enough to respect boundaries without the card.



Again, the players maturity is irrelevant. If you have experienced serious trauma, it can be triggered regardless of how mature you are. If you are playing with someone who has experienced such trauma, you can inadvertently trigger it regardless of how mature you are. The X-card allows someone to give the other players a clear signal that they are in danger, without requiring players who have experienced trauma to disclose that to the rest of the group as a prerequisite to playing with new people.


imagineGod said:


> So ironically, the immature Players who abuse it are the people whose behavior the X-Card is expected to regulate.



The X-card isn’t expected to regulate anyone’s behavior. It’s expected to give players who need it a safe way to signal that the game is moving in a direction that is not safe for them.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel.
> 
> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.




You know, as a parallel analogy, we probably shouldn't have internet forums because there's always the possibility of one person abusing the system and setting up strawman arguments to totally derail the discussions.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Except a disruptive Player without the X-Card can get a talking to by the DM.
> 
> With the X-Card, reading its rules as written, a DM cannot use any evidence of disruption, because as written the X-Card prevents the questioning of why it was triggered. So a disruptive Player can stop another Player's character mid-sentence, and nobody is allowed to question why, even the DM cannot question why.
> 
> So once again, ironically, the X-Card that is a safety tool, itself has no safety rules to protect it from abuse and ruin the entertainment for everyone else at the table.



Apart from the social contract. If someone sets out to use the X-card in a disruptive manner (which by the way I’ve literally never heard of anyone doing), they _might_ get away with it a couple of times, but it will become pretty obvious very quickly, if not immediately, that they are doing so. Just because there isn’t a built-in rules function covering how to address such a situation doesn’t mean the group can’t address it. You’re just engaging in needless handwringing here.


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Yes.  Fencing is one of those activities that carries with it an elevated risk of causing harm to the participants so it makes sense to wear safety equipment to mitigate said risks.  Nobody's saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to manly-men who know no weakness.  Or at least I'm not saying it.  What I am saying is that D&D is not an inherently dangerous activity that requires the use of a safe word.



D&D horror can be inherently dangerous for people with traumas and phobias, so a safe word is absolutely required.


MGibster said:


> The vast majority of those internet gaming horror stories don't involve people who don't understand boundaries or social cues.  Almost all of them involve jerks deliberately behaving like jerks.



And some of them do involve people intentionally avoiding safety tools and poking their players in their traumas, phobias, and fears. Safety tools are meant to minimize that. You will always have jerk DMs like you will always have jerk players. Safety tools will be derided and scoffed at. Sure, fine. Safety tools are meant for the people who can handle them. Who're mature enough to recognize that not everyone has the same feelings, fears, phobias, traumas, and boundaries as they have.


MGibster said:


> And once again, a factory is a hazardous environment which warrants special equipment and rules of behavior to mitigate the risks of physical harm.  I categorically reject the idea that D&D is a dangerous social environment that warrants safety tools.



Then you're wrong. Period. In D&D literally anything can happen. Dismissing mental and emotional harm because it's not physical is dismissing a lot of people and their experiences in life.


MGibster said:


> Should we carry X-Cards in other areas of our life and flag people every time they say something that might trigger us?



Oh, gods. Is this going to turn into yet another "life doesn't come with trigger warnings, snowflake" style rant?


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> What I am saying is that D&D is not an inherently dangerous activity that requires the use of a safe word.



That is an opinion that not everyone shares, obviously. Including the writers at WotC. Having a safe word cost little and can prevent much harm, especially in the context of a horror campaign that's trying to push boundaries a little without actually breaching them.

I mean, maybe your play group are thick skinned, have a past blessedly free of trauma, and have been playing together for long enough that you all know each other's red lines by heart. Good for you! That safe word can sit unused and unneeded, having eaten 30 seconds to explain at the start of the campaign and never brought up again. Not everyone's circumstances are like that. Sometimes you have people with trauma they haven't shared, or are playing with people they know less well, or have a DM that doesn't know how to read the table for when they're pushing too far. For those groups, a safe word is a good thing to have.


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> When I was an active fencer, you didn't cross swords without a mask and padded jacket on. Not because you were trying to genuinely hurt each other, but for safety, because accidents happen. These tools are the same. Saying that using proper safety procedures is an insult to *manly-men *who know no weakness is how someone loses an eye (or a friendship).
> 
> Are they needed? I mean, the Internet has no shortage of gaming horror stories from when things went wrong. Not always because someone was being malicious, but just because people don't always understands boundaries and triggers well. Especially us geeks with our sometimes spotty social skills.
> 
> The summer I worked at a roofing tile factory, I was required to wear a helmet and steel toed boots and ear plugs. Not because accidents were expected, but because accidents are by their nature unpredictable and the cost of using a few basic safety measures so outweighed the potential harm of NOT being protected when you needed to be. It's the same risk calculation here. Overblown handwringing about people abusing the X-Card aside, the cost of using these tools is low and the potential harm they can mitigate is high.



You wre a helmet, probably one like this, as opposed to this this or this.  You have that no true scottsman analogy pointed the wrong way. Doing that might make it easy to dismiss the problem @imagineGod is bringing up, but it actively discourages people from attempting to use these tools or find the way of dong so that best fits their table through anything short of tiral & error.  One of the *many *problems with the tool as written  when trying to move it from therapy/care use to a tabletop rpg where there may be deliberate efforts made to target the individual characters with horror elements  is the one he raised.  That problem is directly created by omissions or bad design elsewhere.

It's great that you  & others want to take safety tools seriously, but part of doing so is accepting that Maslow's Hammer can also apply the scope of what a given tool can or should be applied to is not unlimited.  Doing that involves listening to problems & use cases where the tool is not up to snuff & engaging in rational discussion towards solutions other than trying to shame the person bringing it up.  Instead this is literally a discussion where somebody brought up a problem with the tool and has been under fire as the problem component by multiple posters rather than anyone working towards a solution that fits his needs.

*For those posting about problems they see with the x-card*  I've posted about my use of safewords before and think these might be better suited to some of the problems & concerns  you are worried about


Spoiler




*Green:* Oh I think this is awesome! my character may or may not obviously hate it , but this is just what I want or need. I'm saying green because I want more of it, need more of it, or just feel like this is a good time to let everyone know that I'm ok because the situation might not look like it.
*Yellow:* This is ok I'm fine. I don't want to go further or would like to pull away & will provide more either immediately after or as soon as I finish this thing if I've not already made clear what is yellow in doing so. If someone really can't give any detail about the yellow so everyone else knows ow to proceed they need to call red, you can't use a yellow in place of a red to keep playing like that. _If this responsibility is too much for someone to handle, the rest of the group may or may not care why but we can not consent to playing this kind of with them if it is._
*Check ins:* Anyone can check in on someone (player or gm) at any time and the person being checked on is required to provide some kind of signal ranging from throwing the word green in your reaction to a thumbs up & grin or most anything else as long as everyone is satisfied. _If this responsibility is too much for someone to handle, the rest of the group may or may not care why but we can not consent to playing this kind of with them if it is._
*Red:* If there is any doubt was it a deliberate red or accidental like red haired kid or something? If accidental someone gets scolded & we move on. If deliberate that's it, session over.... We pack up & go get pizza or something someplace other than here, no alcohol is involved no exceptions. We don't get delivery or come back with pizza & today's session is over. While there we as a group discuss what happened. Work out how to avoid repeats. Talk about ways we as a group can do better going if & when we pick things up. Possibly if this is something we should pick back up or not. Given some of the stuff mentioned in the ravenloft book about types of horror this might include a need to go over consent sheets again or more often as well.



It's not a one size fits all & I talk about informed consent along with different types of game styles that could change up the reasons for why they might be needed in the linked post.  If you still have concerns or uncertainties about how something could be handled, you shouldn't worry about bringing them up  somewhere.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Probably everyone should read the X-Card rules as written before posting replies.

It works just like a Magic the Gathering card. You tap it to control the whole table for a moment, even the DM. Once tapped everything anyone else is doing stops. No restrictions on what actions are affected. The whole table stops like a time freeze. After the freeze no explanation is given. It is a very powerful artifact level item.


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> That is how the X-Card rules are written. Clueless to real world social responsibility.



What responsibility does someone with arachnophobia have to the group playing D&D? Or the DM who wants to include spiders? Is it the player's responsibility to detail the exact particulars of their fears to the group before the group gets to pass judgement on those fears and determine if they are valid?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Imagine if the emergency brake on the train is free from questions, and any teenager or adult can trigger it  for any reason whatever, stopping the journey of all other passengers on that train.
> 
> Imagine if a law protects anyone stopping a train for any reason even a joke since no questions can be asked Who is being protected then?
> 
> That is how the X-Card rules are written. Clueless to real world social responsibility.



Another flawed analogy. If the X-card required an explanation to use, it would be like having to prove to the conductor that there’s an emergency before the emergency break would function. In an emergency, there’s no time for that. Safety tools need to work immediately to serve their purpose. If someone abuses their function, there is no reason the abuse can’t be investigated and corrective action taken. Likewise, if someone uses the X-card to disrupt the game, you can investigate and take corrective action.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (May 16, 2021)

Over the course of hundreds of games with dozens and dozens of people, I have never once seen someone "abuse" the X-card to try to "win" D&D.  It's simply the RPG Jerk Fallacy reskinned.  A jerk DM or player is going to ruin a game regardless of X-cards or house rules or session zero.  It's a nonsense argument set up to derail a real discussion.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Another flawed analogy. If the X-card required an explanation to use, it would be like having to prove to the conductor that there’s an emergency before the emergency break would function. In an emergency, there’s no time for that. Safety tools need to work immediately to serve their purpose. If someone abuses their function, there is no reason the abuse can’t be investigated and corrective action taken. Likewise, if someone uses the X-card to disrupt the game, you can investigate and take corrective action.



You do not seem to understand how emergency laws work. 

If a train is stopped an investigation is carried out and the person who triggered it must explain why. 

The X-Card as written deliberately gives cover for abuse. It is like allowing anyone to stop a train at any time for any reason without telling anyone why. Even the DM. That is not a workable law. It was written by someone who has probably never witnessed abuse that affects other people.  Because if the world was run in such laws, rather than safety, we would face chaos.


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> Another flawed analogy. If *the X-card required an explanation to use*, it would be like having to prove to the conductor that there’s an emergency before the emergency break would function. In an emergency, there’s no time for that. Safety tools need to work immediately to serve their purpose. If someone abuses their function, there is no reason the abuse can’t be investigated and corrective action taken. Likewise, if someone uses the X-card to disrupt the game, you can investigate and take corrective action.



you _sure _about that?


Spoiler: quotes from the actual tool






> What is it?​
> It’s a card with an X on it that participants in a Simulation or Role-Playing Game can use to edit out anything that makes them uncomfortable *with no explanations needed.*
> 
> It was originally developed to make gaming with strangers fun, inclusive, and safe.





> 5. “*You don’t have to explain why.*”
> Explaining is bad because it’s extra effort, a higher barrier to accomplish your goal, and it can feel like being put on trial. Plus explanations means more time not playing.
> 
> 6. “It doesn't matter why.”
> No judgement.* No questioning. *



link


I'm pretty sure most people are talking about... or at least _intend _to be talking about the one I linked to & quoted from the the spoiler... What X-card are _you_ talking about?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Probably everyone should read the X-Card rules as written before posting replies.
> 
> It works just like a Magic the Gathering card. You tap it to control the whole table for a moment, even the DM. Once tapped everything anyone else is doing stops. No restrictions on what actions are affected. The whole table stops like a time freeze. After the freeze no explanation is given. It is a very powerful artifact level item.



I have read them, and while the function is like you describe - “tap” the card to indicate you need the action to stop, and it stops with no questions asked - the analogy to a magic card fails because magic cards are game pieces. Their functions are gameplay functions. The X-card is a safety tool. It’s function is entirely meta-game. The emergency break on a train was a much, much better analogy, as both are safety tools which cause something (either the forward movement of a train or the narrative action of a D&D game) to come to an immediate stop before it can blunder into danger.


----------



## overgeeked (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> You do not seem to understand how emergency laws work.
> 
> If a train is stopped an investigation is carried out and the person who triggered it must explain why.
> 
> The X-Card as written deliberately gives cover for abuse. It is like allowing anyone to stop a train at any time for any reason without telling anyone why. Even the DM. That is not a workable law. It was written by someone who has probably never witnessed abuse that affects other people.  Because if the world was run in such laws, rather than safety, we would face chaos.



Good thing we're not talking about how laws are written in the real world, we're talking about safety tools at the gaming table.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Over the course of hundreds of games with dozens and dozens of people, I have never once seen someone "abuse" the X-card to try to "win" D&D.  It's simply the RPG Jerk Fallacy reskinned.  A jerk DM or player is going to ruin a game regardless of X-cards or house rules or session zero.  It's a nonsense argument set up to derail a real discussion.



If the X-Card cannot guarantee safety or stop abuse, then you just made the argument that its existence is worthless.

Without the X-Card, the DM has power to callout a jerk Player. With the X-Card, any DM who targets a Player that tapped the X-Card can be accused of breaking the social contract the X-Card creates, so instead of the cheek Player under fire, it is the DM calling out. 

The X-Card needs a revision to work properly. But all its defenders refuse to fix it


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> You do not seem to understand how emergency laws work.
> 
> If a train is stopped an investigation is carried out and the person who triggered it must explain why.



Yes, _after_ the train has come to a stop. For the X-card to work like that, it has to bring an immediate stop to the gameplay, no questions asked. Once that happens, sure, go ahead and check-in with the player, ask if they’re ok, if they need to take a break, maybe clarify what was happening in the game that they needed it to stop if it isn’t clear. What you don’t do is demand that they justify their use of the card or explain the nature of their trauma.


imagineGod said:


> The X-Card as written deliberately gives cover for abuse.



Are you actually suggesting that John Stavropoulos invented the X-card with the specific intent of allowing people to freely disrupt games? I’d call that an extraordinary claim.


imagineGod said:


> It is like allowing anyone to stop a train at any time for any reason without telling anyone why.



You literally can stop a train at any time for any reason. That doesn’t absolve you of consequences if you do so when there isn’t an actual emergency.


----------



## tetrasodium (May 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> What responsibility does someone with arachnophobia have to the group playing D&D? Or the DM who wants to include spiders? Is it the player's responsibility to detail the exact particulars of their fears to the group before the group gets to pass judgement on those fears and determine if they are valid?



Phobias are the jump scare equivalent of horror.  & in the context of consent tools are little better than a think of the children type argument that makes anyone in disagreement look like some kind of monster without having to address their point as it applies to the lwhole scope of things being discused


imagineGod said:


> If the X-Card cannot guarantee safety or stop abuse, then you just made the argument that its existence is worthless.
> 
> Without the X-Card, the DM has power to callout a jerk Player. With the X-Card, any DM who targets a Player that tapped the X-Card can be accused of breaking the social contract the X-Card creates, so instead of the cheek Player under fire, it is the DM calling out.
> 
> The X-Card needs a revision to work properly. But all its defenders refuse to fix it



the "lines & veils" suffers from a similar problem where they are literally a discretion shot trying to fill the much bigger & very different shoes of a soft limit & a poorly defined hard limit worded in a way that encourages misunderstandings between individuals with different assumptions


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

bedir than said:


> Why would you expect the skin color of orcs to be consistent throughout various world or even continents?



I'd be fine with that if they actually went and _did_ that. Better than fine, it's be really cool of orcs came in a spectrum from pale grey to dark green and maybe even a bit yellowish in some cases. Right now, though, D&D orcs are textually grey and it's bleed over from Warhammer and Warcraft that makes people assume they're green. Which isn't something that really matters, in any important sense, but it bugs me.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> If the X-Card cannot guarantee safety or stop abuse, then you just made the argument that its existence is worthless.



That’s absurd. Just because a safety tool isn’t 100% effective doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. Condoms aren’t 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or STIs, but they aren’t worthless. The point of a safety tool is to reduce the risk of harm. If it does that with a reasonable degree of reliability it’s useful. Can it be improved on? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth using as-is.


imagineGod said:


> Without the X-Card, the DM has power to callout a jerk Player. With the X-Card, any DM who targets a Player that tapped the X-Card can be accused of breaking the social contract the X-Card creates, so instead of the cheek Player under fire, it is the DM calling out.



Only if the entire group is made up of robots who are incapable of recognizing context or making judgment calls. But in real life, it’s pretty easy to recognize when someone is using the X-card in bad faith.


imagineGod said:


> The X-Card needs a revision to work properly. But all its defenders refuse to fix it



As I said before, I don’t think the X-card is perfect. If you want to discuss ways to improve it or alternative safety tools, that’s fine. I rather liked @tetrasodium ’s adaptation with different colors for different levels of comfort. That’s a very different conversation than rejecting the X-card as worthless because it doesn’t force players to rehash trauma to justify their use of it.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> If the X-Card cannot guarantee safety or stop abuse, then you just made the argument that its existence is worthless.



Um, no.  I mean, is there any way to guarantee safety or stop abuse 100% with a rule?  Are you saying that since rules can't stop people from doing bad things, then there should be no rules?  You do see the ridiculousness here, I hope.



imagineGod said:


> Without the X-Card, the DM has power to callout a jerk Player. With the X-Card, any DM who targets a Player that tapped the X-Card can be accused of breaking the social contract the X-Card creates, so instead of the cheek Player under fire, it is the DM calling out.



The DM _always _has the power to call out a jerk player - and should do so with care whether or not the X-card is part of the gaming group.  Sometimes what appears as jerk activity is a miscommunication.

If someone is tapping the X-card repeatedly, the DM and that player should have a conversation after the session away from the other players.  Clearly some expectations about the type of game were not set properly if that situation is happening in good faith.  Or, we have a case of a jerk player.  The thing is, though, a jerk player won't be able to help themselves.  They won't rely solely on tapping the X-Card as their tactic du jour to "win".



imagineGod said:


> The X-Card needs a revision to work properly. But all its defenders refuse to fix it



I don't see anyone here refusing to improve upon the X-Card.


----------



## Rikka66 (May 16, 2021)

You guys are really abusing the poor metaphor right now.



imagineGod said:


> The X-Card needs a revision to work properly. But all its defenders refuse to fix it




They don't have a problem with it, so the onerous is really on you to suggest a solution.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I noticed nobody here has offered a solution to the X-Card abuse. It is like wearing a helmet that pops open upon impact not protecting the wearer and potentially injuring onlookers with shrapnel.
> 
> I cannot understand why any single Player should have the power to ruin the experience for every other Player and even override the DM. The X-Card rules as written, and if not revised with a logically consistent update, grant excessive power to the first tapper at the table.




That’s because it doesn’t happen and your afraid of ghosts.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (May 16, 2021)

Who ya gonna call?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (May 16, 2021)

There's no point in trying to design around players acting in bad faith, both on an in-game level and a meta-game level. No amount of rules to prevent bad behaviour will dissuade somebody whose intent from the very beginning is to ignore them. Whether it's the X-Card or the encumbrance rules doesn't change that.

To me, the "what if a jerk player abuses the card" argument just comes across as sealioning because of the above point. No amount of design can prevent a bad faith player from acting in bad faith. That argument shouldn't be used as a weapon against the utility of the rule used by players acting in good faith.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2021)

LongTimeLurker said:


> Oh, so it's Ravenloft: Disney Edition. Thanks for the in depth review/preview. It really helped me to decide to let this book stay at the store.



I feel like you may not have re-read previous editions of Ravenloft recently. They're all rated PG at best.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> View attachment 136999



I strongly suggest adventurers not have facial piercings like that elf, unless they want their cleric to be constantly growing their nostril back.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 16, 2021)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> To me, the "what if a jerk player abuses the card" argument just comes across as sealioning because of the above point. No amount of design can prevent a bad faith player from acting in bad faith. That argumebt shouldn't be used as a weapon against the utility of the rule used by players acting in good faith.



Indeed. Rules can't be executed blindly. The real world is too complex and there are too many possible special circumstances. That's why there have to be arbiters of the rules who can intervene when the rules are insufficient. That's my brother's entire line of work. He's part of the state DMV and is one of the people who settles things when there are disputes. So he gets to authorize exceptions when someone is getting screwed over by the RAW in a way the RAI didn't mean to, and he's the guy who brings the hammer when someone is trying to cheat the system in bad faith.

He tells me his years as a DM have prepared him for this line of work exceptionally well.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 16, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I strongly suggest adventurers not have facial piercings like that elf, unless they want their cleric to be constantly growing their nostril back.



Agreed. Also, ouch. 

Side Note: What even is that type of elf? The caption in the book doesn't say. My guess is some kind of High Elf, but it doesn't really look like one.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> If the X-Card cannot guarantee safety or stop abuse, then you just made the argument that its existence is worthless.



That is a very COVID-age argument isn't it? A mask does not 100% protect from infection, ergo I refuse to wear a mask.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> That is pretty privileged. Not everybody has friends who also play role playing games.



Okay, so having friends make me privileged? Strangely, I would say yes I am privileged - I'm male, I'm white, I'm educated, I'm not poor. But having friends is something many people a lot less well off than me have. But if the only way I could get to play D&D was to associate with the kind of loathsome individuals who enjoy spoiling other people's fun, then I would rather give up D&D.


----------



## imagineGod (May 16, 2021)

Rikka66 said:


> You guys are really abusing the poor metaphor right now.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a problem with it, so the onerous is really on you to suggest a solution.



I saw a "snake oil salesman" selling a helmet that was manufactured without standards and risks injury to the wearer and those around. I pointed out the flaw. 

All the devoted worshipers of that helmet, instead of addressing the flaw, attack the one who identified it. How very cult-like this mentality I see here. Dog pile after dog pile. Clap for yourselves as exemplars of what is wrong with cult worship of ideas.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Agreed. Also, ouch.
> 
> Side Note: What even is that type of elf? The caption in the book doesn't say. My guess is some kind of High Elf, but it doesn't really look like one.



Shadar-kai? It'd be a good fit for a Ravenloft campaign.


----------



## MGibster (May 16, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> There are people who have disabilities that make wearing a helmet during everyday activities is in fact warranted. There are also people who have had traumatic experiences that make D&D a potentially dangerous activity for them, and there is no way to identify these people visually.



And for those individuals, I believe everyone is far better served if they have a discussion with the DM and possibly the other players to ensure whatever might cause them anxiety doesn't appear in the game.


overgeeked said:


> D&D horror can be inherently dangerous for people with traumas and phobias, so a safe word is absolutely required.



And it would behoove those individuals to take steps to ensure that they're protected by speaking to the group they're gaming with. 


overgeeked said:


> And some of them do involve people intentionally avoiding safety tools and poking their players in their traumas, phobias, and fears. Safety tools are meant to minimize that.



No safety tool will fix someone who is intentionally poking at their players traumas, phobias, and fears.  If a DM knows you suffer from acute arachnophobia and throws out a bunch of spider miniatures for an encounter then that DM is a jerk and no safety tool will protect you from that. 



overgeeked said:


> Then you're wrong. Period. In D&D literally anything can happen. Dismissing mental and emotional harm because it's not physical is dismissing a lot of people and their experiences in life.



I'm not dismissing mental and emotional harm.  The examples others have brought up have been sports (fencing) and factories which tend to have rules to mitigate physical rather than emotional harms.  For the vast majority of participants, there isn't a serious risk of mental or emotional harm from playing D&D. 



overgeeked said:


> Oh, gods. Is this going to turn into yet another "life doesn't come with trigger warnings, snowflake" style rant?



I haven't called anyone snowflakes nor have I said anything negative about those who use X-Cards.  In fact, in other threads I've defended those who use X-Cards against accusations that they're immature.  I don't like the X-Cards as I don't believe they're generally needed, but I don't have any negative opinions of those who do use them.  Believe it or not, we can disagree without thinking poorly of one another.



overgeeked said:


> What responsibility does someone with arachnophobia have to the group playing D&D? Or the DM who wants to include spiders? Is it the player's responsibility to detail the exact particulars of their fears to the group before the group gets to pass judgement on those fears and determine if they are valid?



If you have an unusual condition that might get in the way of normal game play then it's your responsibility to bring it up to the DM.  You don't have to tell the DM the specifics of why you have a problem with spiders but you really should say something.  It sure has heck beats just throwing out a card the first time a spider appears in the game.


----------



## Azzy (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> The X-Card is has worse design flaws than some Magic The Gathering cards, because it encourages anybody ito stop any scene for anything whatsoever, with zero explanations to anybody even the GM.
> 
> The only way it works is if everybody at the table is already mature enough to respect everybody else.
> 
> ...



My god. This is just a stupid argument that hinges upon worse-case scenarios involving the worst-case people. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> I saw a "snake oil salesman"



*Mod Note:*

Calling people who disagree with you snake oil salesmen is not acceptable.  You are done in this discussion.  Please find one in which you can treat people with respect.


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2021)

EDIT: Mod-ninja'd. Looks like this discussion's over.


----------



## Voadam (May 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> What responsibility does someone with arachnophobia have to the group playing D&D? Or the DM who wants to include spiders? Is it the player's responsibility to detail the exact particulars of their fears to the group before the group gets to pass judgement on those fears and determine if they are valid?



I actually had a guy with arachnophobia in my game. He said "I am really freaked out about spiders, even saying the word makes me uncomfortable. I would really appreciate it if we could avoid having them come up directly in games."

As a group we all said sure, got it, and moved on.

From that point on I reskinned spider encounters in my game to snakes or other stuff and did not suggest we play Lolth focused adventures. When he ran a module there were conspicuous poisonous "giant cave bunnies" which became a fun in-joke for us that some of us adopted as DMs.

I feel his communicating his issue was appropriate.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 16, 2021)

MGibster said:


> And for those individuals, I believe everyone is far better served if they have a discussion with the DM and possibly the other players to ensure whatever might cause them anxiety doesn't appear in the game.



That works for players who are comfortable talking about their phobias and/or trauma, but it does not work as a matter of course to put the burden on players who have experienced trauma to identify and explain the nature of their trauma as a prerequisite to join a new gaming group. Having to do so can be just as unsafe as having triggers come up in game.


MGibster said:


> And it would behoove those individuals to take steps to ensure that they're protected by speaking to the group they're gaming with.



Again, if they’re comfortable doing so, sure. But not everyone is, and it isn’t a reasonable expectation that everyone who has experienced severe trauma disclose that to strangers in order to be able to play the game safely.


MGibster said:


> No safety tool will fix someone who is intentionally poking at their players traumas, phobias, and fears.  If a DM knows you suffer from acute arachnophobia and throws out a bunch of spider miniatures for an encounter then that DM is a jerk and no safety tool will protect you from that.



Obviously. That isn’t the intent of the safety tools. They are to protect players from well-meaning DMs who _don’t_ know their traumas, phobias, and fears from triggering them entirely by accident.


MGibster said:


> I'm not dismissing mental and emotional harm.  The examples others have brought up have been sports (fencing) and factories which tend to have rules to mitigate physical rather than emotional harms.  For the vast majority of participants, there isn't a serious risk of mental or emotional harm from playing D&D.



Right, but for the minority for whom there is, placing an expectation on them to either disclose those vulnerabilities to strangers or risk having them unintentionally triggered is not reasonable.


MGibster said:


> I haven't called anyone snowflakes nor have I said anything negative about those who use X-Cards.  In fact, in other threads I've defended those who use X-Cards against accusations that they're immature.  I don't like the X-Cards as I don't believe they're generally needed, but I don't have any negative opinions of those who do use them.  Believe it or not, we can disagree without thinking poorly of one another.



Yeah, I’ve seen you defend those that use them, and appreciate it. I’ll also defend those who choose not to use them in groups of people they know well and can manage each other’s comfort levels fine without such tools. What they’re really for is groups who are not so close and might run afoul of these issues accidentally.


MGibster said:


> If you have an unusual condition that might get in the way of normal game play then it's your responsibility to bring it up to the DM.  You don't have to tell the DM the specifics of why you have a problem with spiders but you really should say something.  It sure has heck beats just throwing out a card the first time a spider appears in the game.



If you’re comfortable doing so, certainly. But that’s not a reasonable expectation to apply to everyone. People should not be forced to disclose sensitive personal information as a prerequisite to safely participate in a game.


----------



## Necrozius (May 16, 2021)

Can there just be another thread about the X card so we can talk about Ravenloft again? I’d like to see more discussion about this review (or of other reviews).


----------



## Weiley31 (May 17, 2021)

I mean, if somebody is constantly tapping the X-Card for anything OUTSIDE of its original purpose constantly, you kick that disruptive player out and then REWIND the scene back to the moment where said disruptive player decided to be a jerk with the constant tapping. THAT is when you question the X-Card.

You don't question the X-Card when its being used for its ACUTAL PURPOSE and not because somebody is being a duck about it.


----------



## Weiley31 (May 17, 2021)

ANYWHO, back on topic right(?), part of me would love to use the Follower rules from the 5E Beowulf and use it in the Ravenloft.

Horror movie hero party mooks, the angry mob with torches and pitchforks, Beowulf in Ravenloft, villagers trying to fight off monsters while being led by a PC? I feel like it checks the boxes off pretty well.


----------



## MGibster (May 17, 2021)

Necrozius said:


> Can there just be another thread about the X card so we can talk about Ravenloft again? I’d like to see more discussion about this review (or of other reviews).



The X-Card is in the Ravenloft book.  Talking about it _is_ talking about Ravenloft.


----------



## overgeeked (May 17, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> ANYWHO, back on topic right(?), part of me would love to use the Follower rules from the 5E Beowulf and use it in the Ravenloft.
> 
> Horror movie hero party mooks, the angry mob with torches and pitchforks, Beowulf in Ravenloft, villagers trying to fight off monsters while being led by a PC? I feel like it checks the boxes off pretty well.



I’m not familiar with that game, but VGR does have survivors. A kind of 0-level PC mook.


----------



## Weiley31 (May 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I’m not familiar with that game, but VGR does have survivors. A kind of 0-level PC mook.



It's basically a Duet style play of 5E where you have a DM and a single player. It pretty much has its own Follower/Retainers/Hireling system.








						D&D 5E - [Let's Read] Beowulf: Age of Heroes
					

As you can tell with my prior Supers & Sorcery review, I’m attracted to products which promise to do something novel and experimental. Back during the heyday of Min-Max Boards I had a mini-series known as Courtroom Reviews where I looked over D20 sourcebooks promising to revolutionize the rules...




					www.enworld.org
				




But that's still pretty neat about Ravenloft's Survivors.


----------



## MGibster (May 17, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> That works for players who are comfortable talking about their phobias and/or trauma, but it does not work as a matter of course to put the burden on players who have experienced trauma to identify and explain the nature of their trauma as a prerequisite to join a new gaming group. Having to do so can be just as unsafe as having triggers come up in game.



There is no system either of us can come up with which will work for all people involved, at all times, in all situations.  So you're right, it doesn't work for players who are not at all comfortable talking to the DM about things they'd rather not see in the game.  But if a player is suffering from that level of anxiety I'm not sure an X-Card would be much help given that they're not used until _after_ the player starts feeling uncomfortable.



Charlaquin said:


> Again, if they’re comfortable doing so, sure. But not everyone is, and it isn’t a reasonable expectation that everyone who has experienced severe trauma disclose that to strangers in order to be able to play the game safely.



For one moment I'm going to posit that you are correct, for some individuals D&D _is_ an inherently dangerous activity necessitating safe words and safety tools. My priority isn't just the safety of the individual who might be triggered, but the safety and comfort of all involved. If this is the case, then it is absolutely vital that clear and open communication between all participants is established prior to play, that communication is encouraged during play, and the open dialogue continues post game.

Prior to the start of the game, boundaries need to be established so all participants understand what's off the table during game play.  Boundaries protect not only the individual with anxiety issues but also other participants from the trauma of inadvertently causing harm to other players.  You cannot have a safe game if you fail to establish boundaries before the game starts.  If all participants cannot effectively communicate what is an isn't acceptable in the game then they should not engage in what is an inherently dangerous activity.  

And I guess that's about all I have to say about the subject.  While it s part of the Ravenloft book and fair game for discussion there are other things I'd rather talk about in relation to one of my favorite settings.  I have no problem making reasonable accommodations for players where needed.  I just think the X-Card is a terrible mechanism for it and I strongly dislike the idea that D&D is dangerous.  Likely that stems from such arguments sounding so much like what we heard in the 80s.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 17, 2021)

MGibster said:


> There is no system either of us can come up with which will work for all people involved, at all times, in all situations.



Exactly. So we must ask ourselves, who we will design the system to work for. My priority is to design it for those most in need of support. Use of an X-card is at most a minor inconvenience for those who don’t need it, but it can save those who do a tremendous amount of distress. Its obvious to me that using it is the better choice.


MGibster said:


> So you're right, it doesn't work for players who are not at all comfortable talking to the DM about things they'd rather not see in the game.



That is not what I said. Obviously players should set boundaries with their DMs. This isn’t about socially anxious players, it’s about people who have suffered severe trauma. It is completely unreasonable to expect those people to have to disclose that to play with a new group.


MGibster said:


> But if a player is suffering from that level of anxiety I'm not sure an X-Card would be much help given that they're not used until _after_ the player starts feeling uncomfortable.



Again, anxiety really isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about post-traumatic stress.


MGibster said:


> For one moment I'm going to posit that you are correct, for some individuals D&D _is_ an inherently dangerous activity necessitating safe words and safety tools. My priority isn't just the safety of the individual who might be triggered, but the safety and comfort of all involved. If this is the case, then it is absolutely vital that clear and open communication between all participants is established prior to play, that communication is encouraged during play, and the open dialogue continues post game.
> 
> Prior to the start of the game, boundaries need to be established so all participants understand what's off the table during game play.  Boundaries protect not only the individual with anxiety issues but also other participants from the trauma of inadvertently causing harm to other players.  You cannot have a safe game if you fail to establish boundaries before the game starts.



Granted. Boundary setting is an important part of the game and I have not argued otherwise.


MGibster said:


> If all participants cannot effectively communicate what is an isn't acceptable in the game then they should not engage in what is an inherently dangerous activity.



I disagree. People who have experienced trauma should be allowed to play the game, and they shouldn’t be required to disclose that history to strangers in order to do so. Setting boundaries is great, but it is still worthwhile to have tools to express, in a safe manner, when a boundary has accidentally been crossed.


MGibster said:


> I have no problem making reasonable accommodations for players where needed.  I just think the X-Card is a terrible mechanism for it and I strongly dislike the idea that D&D is dangerous.  Likely that stems from such arguments sounding so much like what we heard in the 80s.



It’s not even vaguely comparable to the Satanic Panic if that’s what you’re suggesting.


----------



## TheIdeaOfGood (May 17, 2021)

Very cool review and I cannot wait for the book!
I really like the toolkits provided and the changes to the Vistani. Kinda funny, I always played them the way they are now depicted, as people who are just trying to get by in a land where evil so often reigns supreme.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> The idea of the adventuring/combat wheelchair is perhaps the best Taking the Mickey job on the hobby I have ever seen.
> 
> They're popping up everywhere. It's great.



It’s not a joke.


----------



## Istbor (May 17, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> If you game with people who have experienced serious trauma, their age and maturity are irrelevant. If they unexpectedly encounter trauma triggers at your game, that can be harmful, regardless of how old they are or how mature they are. Now, if you game with a group of people you know well, and know haven’t experienced such trauma (or who you know have and know how to avoid triggering it), you might not need these tools. That is fortunate for you and your group. Not everyone has that luxury. For those who play with people they are not so intimately familiar with, these tools can be quite useful.




Not to dredge up this strand of the thread, but agreed. Trauma does not care about age. 

I probably wouldn't classify it as trauma exactly, but my fiancé passed away early this year. If I was playing in a game today that pulled something that looked like or hard reminded me of that, I'm not sure how well I would take it. I may or may not say something to the DM depending on how I know him/her, and I probably wouldn't just walk away from the game, but it would greatly diminish the amount of fun I had. And while I may believe I can count on my closer gaming buddies not to do something like that so soon, we're all just human and sometimes make moves we aren't as aware are sensitive to others.

In that regard, a discussion beforehand about how the campaign is going to feature loved ones being ripped away from your characters would be very much appreciated. Not to mention other themes that might cause one to reflect on it.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 17, 2021)

Istbor said:


> Not to dredge up this strand of the thread, but agreed. Trauma does not care about age.
> 
> I probably wouldn't classify it as trauma exactly, but my fiancé passed away early this year. If I was playing in a game today that pulled something that looked like or hard reminded me of that, I'm not sure how well I would take it. I may or may not say something to the DM depending on how I know him/her, and I probably wouldn't just walk away from the game, but it would greatly diminish the amount of fun I had. And while I may believe I can count on my closer gaming buddies not to do something like that so soon, we're all just human and sometimes make moves we aren't as aware are sensitive to others.
> 
> In that regard, a discussion beforehand about how the campaign is going to feature loved ones being ripped away from your characters would be very much appreciated. Not to mention other themes that might cause one to reflect on it.



Sorry for your loss, and thank you for sharing your story. A very good example of the potential utility of tools like the X-card.


----------



## Istbor (May 17, 2021)

Now, the review. I really appreciated it.

Honestly, Ravenloft is typically a pass for me. It usually just looked like D&D, but we are playing through old movie plots. I know that is a pretty simple-view of it, but my brain is my brain. 

This however, helps me see potential in some of the tools it provides and as well, some of the talked about domains could be pretty fun to game in. Likely moved me from "meh" to, "okay... I probably should get building that second bookshelf..."


----------



## jasper (May 17, 2021)

I had a player stated he hated how the write up of x card was done. He state he would be a jerk. I told him only once at my table.  I have changed the x-card wording to include "Tap but I need to know at least a word. Like spiders bad".


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> Imagine if the emergency brake on the train is free from questions, and any teenager or adult can trigger it  for any reason whatever, stopping the journey of all other passengers on that train.
> 
> Imagine if a law protects anyone stopping a train for any reason even a joke since no questions can be asked Who is being protected then?
> 
> That is how the X-Card rules are written. Clueless to real world social responsibility.



The better analogy is a public bus. Any passenger can cause the bus to stop, in an orderly fashion. No asks why, and abuse is quite obvious.


----------



## manitobamando (May 19, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



So, why could you not have both? I do not plan my game to be PG by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Weiley31 (May 19, 2021)

I really do like the Survivor rules in this. And I also think that allowing them to take Sidekick classes would also be pretty neat as well.


----------



## manitobamando (May 19, 2021)

The Glen said:


> And this became a hard pass for me. Not interested in PG horror. Would have preferred classic domains with new materials rather than just changing old stuff. That's just lazy writing.



Who says you cant do both here? My campaign is not going to be PG rated by any means. Supplements are only outlines, it up to the DM to make them more immersive.


----------



## Faolyn (May 19, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I strongly suggest adventurers not have facial piercings like that elf, unless they want their cleric to be constantly growing their nostril back.



While I've seen that picture before, it always brings up the question: _what the heck is the tool that orc is using?_ It looks like he's digging into the elf's arm with a chisel. Man it looks painful.


----------



## Faolyn (May 19, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm not dismissing mental and emotional harm. The examples others have brought up have been sports (fencing) and factories which tend to have rules to mitigate physical rather than emotional harms. For the vast majority of participants, there isn't a serious risk of mental or emotional harm from playing D&D.



You know, up until very recently it wasn't socially acceptable for people to talk about things that caused them mental or emotional harm. It wasn't even considered possible to ask people to _stop _doing things that bothered you, because it was assumed that if you were bothered, you should just ignore it or try to get over it. Because "it's just words" or "it's not real; it's just in your head." Especially when combined with those common geek social fallacies that might have kept people coming back to the table, no matter their discomfort.

So in reality, there may actually have been quite a bit of mental or emotional harm done _purely by accident_ because of previously accepted societal norms--and that's ignoring those people who deliberately engage in cruelties while gaming.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 19, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> While I've seen that picture before, it always brings up the question: _what the heck is the tool that orc is using?_ It looks like he's digging into the elf's arm with a chisel. Man it looks painful.



I believe it’s a (fantasy) tattoo machine.


----------



## Faolyn (May 19, 2021)

I've gotten up to Kalakeri and noticed that one of the adventures featured "a mysterious oni merchant named Estavan." Estavan is originally from _Uncaged: Faces in Sigil_ (aka, "the entry written in a tiny and almost unreadable script font"). Planescape confirmed?


----------



## tetrasodium (May 19, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> While I've seen that picture before, it always brings up the question: _what the heck is the tool that orc is using?_ It looks like he's digging into the elf's arm with a chisel. Man it looks painful.




looks like a straight version of the tool used in 


Spoiler: traditional tatau


----------



## Faolyn (May 19, 2021)

tetrasodium said:


> looks like a straight version of the tool used in
> 
> 
> Spoiler: traditional tatau



<cringe> 

Thanks. But ouch.


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2021)

imagineGod said:


> If a train is stopped an investigation is carried out and the person who triggered it must explain why.
> 
> The X-Card as written deliberately gives cover for abuse. It is like allowing anyone to stop a train at any time for any reason without telling anyone why. Even the DM. That is not a workable law. It was written by someone who has probably never witnessed abuse that affects other people.  Because if the world was run in such laws, rather than safety, we would face chaos.



I know he's no longer in the discussion, but whether someone has reservations about certain aspects of certain safety tools or not (and I think there are arguments to be made), equating their held-up game with a stopped train (and all that means for timetables and public safety) is an exercise in *gross* disproportionality. It's much more like my daughter having to leave the movie theater and me having to take her home because the loud sounds of the movie were starting to set off her misophonia and an anxiety attack that evening. It's inconvenient. It's disappointing because I wanted to see more of the movie. But it's not the end of the world and her safety will always more important than my enjoyment of that movie at that time and place.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> So in reality, there may actually have been quite a bit of mental or emotional harm done _purely by accident_ because of previously accepted societal norms--and that's ignoring those people who deliberately engage in cruelties while gaming.



I'm willing to concede that I might be mistaken and there have been many players mentally harmed by the contents of the games they've participated in.  Do you know of any studies from the CDC, psychologist or organizations with an interest in mental health who have published literature on the subject of mental trauma inflicted during role playing games?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 19, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm willing to concede that I might be mistaken and there have been many players mentally harmed by the contents of the games they've participated in.  Do you know of any studies from the CDC, psychologist or organizations with an interest in mental health who have published literature on the subject of mental trauma inflicted during role playing games?



We’re not talking about trauma _inflicted_ during roleplaying games. We’re talking about post-traumatic stress _triggered_ by roleplaying games.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> We’re not talking about trauma _inflicted_ during roleplaying games. We’re talking about post-traumatic stress _triggered_ by roleplaying games.



I've been working under the assumption that triggering a panic attack was a form of trauma.  But fine, are you aware of any studies that deal with PTSD and role playing games?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 19, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I've been working under the assumption that triggering a panic attack was a form of trauma.  But fine, are you aware of any studies that deal with PTSD and role playing games?



Not roleplaying games specifically. There’s plenty of literature on post-traumatic stress generally.


----------



## Remathilis (May 19, 2021)

I'm constantly amazed how the notion of "respect other players boundaries" is somehow controversial.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> I'm constantly amazed how the notion of "respect other players boundaries" is somehow controversial.



I'm frequently amazed by the notion that anyone who dislikes the X-Card somehow has a problem with respecting boundaries.  I've actually argued that boundaries need to be established at the beginning of the game not in the middle of it.  



Charlaquin said:


> Not roleplaying games specifically. There’s plenty of literature on post-traumatic stress generally.




And does that literature suggest the use of safety words to be used by all participants in other social situations?


----------



## Malcolm Serabian (May 19, 2021)

McGibster Here is a very simple article about anxiety triggers which you can read. 11 Anxiety Triggers and How to Identify and Manage Them

Here are 2 sections from the article that relate to things that can happen in rpgs.

10. Public events or performances​Public speaking, talking in front of your boss, performing in a competition, or even just reading aloud is a common trigger of anxiety. If your job or hobbies require this, your doctor or therapist can work with you to learn ways to be more comfortable in these settings.

Also, positive reinforcements from friends and colleagues can help you feel more comfortable and confident.

11. Personal triggers​These triggers may be difficult to identify, but a mental health specialist is trained to help you identify them. These may begin with a smell, a place, or even a song. Personal triggers remind you, either consciously or unconsciously, of a bad memory or traumatic event in your life. Individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently experience anxiety triggers from environmental triggers.

Identifying personal triggers may take time, but it’s important so you can learn to overcome them.

so while I am unaware of any specific literature about triggers in rpgs, you can clearly see from the 2 listed items above that it is accepted mental health that the types of things that can come up in any rpg could certainly trigger a persons anxiety...


----------



## Remathilis (May 19, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm frequently amazed by the notion that anyone who dislikes the X-Card somehow has a problem with respecting boundaries. I've actually argued that boundaries need to be established at the beginning of the game not in the middle of it.




Ideally, both. You should establish limits and preferences early, but it doesn't hurt to have some form of handbrake in case things do go off the rails. Their is a reason why concepts like "safe words" exist in OTHER forms of "adult roleplaying" as well a "lights on" protocols in various interactive attractions...


----------



## Malcolm Serabian (May 19, 2021)

sorry double post


----------



## overgeeked (May 19, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm frequently amazed by the notion that anyone who dislikes the X-Card somehow has a problem with respecting boundaries.  I've actually argued that boundaries need to be established at the beginning of the game not in the middle of it.



You can't expect to perfectly cover any possible problem in a pre-game talk or between game talks. Session Zero only covers so much. Things come up in game. There needs to be a way to handle problems during play. And "too bad, deal with it" isn't really a helpful response.


----------



## MGibster (May 20, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> You can't expect to perfectly cover any possible problem in a pre-game talk or between game talks. Session Zero only covers so much. Things come up in game. There needs to be a way to handle problems during play. And "too bad, deal with it" isn't really a helpful response.



I'm not exactly demanding perfection here.  It's been argued in this thread that it's unreasonable to expect someone to tell you during session zero what they don't want to see. My biggest problem with that is the X-Card isn't played until _after_ a player is faced with something that causes them discomfort.  If boundaries aren't established prior to starting game play then the game isn't safe.


----------



## Faolyn (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm willing to concede that I might be mistaken and there have been many players mentally harmed by the contents of the games they've participated in.  Do you know of any studies from the CDC, psychologist or organizations with an interest in mental health who have published literature on the subject of mental trauma inflicted during role playing games?



I don't read psychiatric journals for fun, so no. And does something have to inflict long-term psychological damage for it to matter? Does merely causing someone unnecessary temporary pain not count?

Anecdotally, I suggest looking at r/rpghorrorstories where, if those stories are to be believed, all sorts of unpleasantries has been inflicted on hapless players, sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately. And personally, I've both been subjected to and witnessed other people getting the "it's just a joke!" or "I say that to everyone!" bit. 

But here's the thing: if a player says "please don't include X in the game," then there's a very good chance that if you choose to include X, you might end up causing that person harm. It might just be temporary harm, but considering that you're _playing a game_, there's no reason for even temporary pain to be inflicted if it can be avoided.

If a player taps the X card, do they need to explain why, exactly, they want to move away from whatever the topic is? No, as long as they say which topic they want to avoid so the others don't get confused and say "but we've talked about gnomes before with no problems."

Do you really need a study to tell you that?



MGibster said:


> I've actually argued that boundaries need to be established at the beginning of the game not in the middle of it.



And if that person didn't realize that boundary needed to be set at the beginning of the game? Or if it's a new problem that's upsetting them that didn't exist then?


----------



## MGibster (May 20, 2021)

Malcolm Serabian said:


> so while I am unaware of any specific literature about triggers in rpgs, you can clearly see from the 2 listed items above that it is accepted mental health that the types of things that can come up in any rpg could certainly trigger a persons anxiety...



I'm aware of this.  When someone is suffering from an anxiety disorder you never know what might trigger a response.  Walking down the street on a sunny day and taking in the scent of flowers or hearing thunder in the distant might trigger a response.  I've heard it argued that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.  I'd like to see evidence that this is the case.  Peer reviewed evidence.  I'm asking you the same thing I'd ask people in the 80s who told us role playing games were dangerous because of the potential psychological damage it can cause to participants.  As far as I can tell, the X-Card is there to prevent a problem that doesn't exist.  Players aren't being triggered and having panic attacks at gaming tables across the nation.


----------



## Faolyn (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm aware of this.  When someone is suffering from an anxiety disorder you never know what might trigger a response.  Walking down the street on a sunny day and taking in the scent of flowers or hearing thunder in the distant might trigger a response.  I've heard it argued that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.  I'd like to see evidence that this is the case.  Peer reviewed evidence.  I'm asking you the same thing I'd ask people in the 80s who told us role playing games were dangerous because of the potential psychological damage it can cause to participants.  As far as I can tell, the X-Card is there to prevent a problem that doesn't exist.  Players aren't being triggered and having panic attacks at gaming tables across the nation.



Nobody has said that RPGs are "inherently dangerous." What we've said is that it's very possible to cause harm to a person accidentally by things that are often in used in RPGs, such as certain monsters like giant spiders, harm to children, rape or sex slavery, torture, demon possession, etc.


----------



## MGibster (May 20, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> Nobody has said that RPGs are "inherently dangerous." What we've said is that it's very possible to cause harm to a person accidentally by things that are often in used in RPGs, such as certain monsters like giant spiders, harm to children, rape or sex slavery, torture, demon possession, etc.



It's a long thread but other posters have said that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.  And I think this is a good time for me to bow out of the discussion regarding X-Cards.  I've said my peace and it appears as though we're just circling around repeating the same points and counterpoints.  We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this.


----------



## Necrozius (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> It's a long thread but other posters have said that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.  And I think this is a good time for me to bow out of the discussion regarding X-Cards.  I've said my peace and it appears as though we're just circling around repeating the same points and counterpoints.  We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this.



There is something inherently risky about intense social interactions (especially 3-4 hour games) with complete strangers. Something that happens regularly in this hobby.

Anecdotally, my experiences with RPGs with strangers or new acquaintances have often led to thoroughly unpleasant situations. I’ve bowed out early from sessions at someone’s house, causing all kinds of backlash and verbal abuse. I’ve been at conventions where you were not allowed to leave mid-session for whatever reason or you were literally kicked out (so having to remain sitting at a table with socially incompatible or outright assholes).

This is why I only play with close friends, but I know that many people don’t have that luxury and are stuck with playing with strangers. Hence why I can understand why the X Card exists.


----------



## overgeeked (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm not exactly demanding perfection here.



Except you are. You're putting 100% of the work on pre-game or between-session safety tools. If players want their boundaries respected, they must inform you beforehand what those boundaries are, or after a session after those boundaries have already been violated. Further, you're refusing to acknowledge that there is a need for during-session safety tools.


MGibster said:


> It's been argued in this thread that it's unreasonable to expect someone to tell you during session zero what they don't want to see.



No, it hasn't. What's been argued is that sometimes things will occur during a session that are problematic that the player did not foresee being a problem and that the player should not have to justify their trauma to the DM in the middle of the session with a table full of other players. Hence the need for during-session safety tools, such as the X-card.


MGibster said:


> My biggest problem with that is the X-Card isn't played until _after_ a player is faced with something that causes them discomfort.  If boundaries aren't established prior to starting game play then the game isn't safe.



See, that's what I'm saying. You're assuming a few things here. First, that safety tools are an either, or proposition. They're not. You can use lines & veils along with the X-card. Along with a rating system. Along with whatever else. Second, you're assuming that pre-game and between-session safety tools will be perfect and catch all issues. Third, you're refusing to acknowledge that accidents or problems can still happen during a session.

You use Session Zero to establish expectations. You use lines & veils to establish what's off limits and what should be kept in the background, to establish boundaries. But, even after doing that you can still have problems arise during a session, so you need during-session safety tools. These kinds of tools are for the things that fall through the cracks. It's literally impossible to perfectly catch everything with pre-game or between-session safety tools, but you still use them to account for as many _known_ quantities as you can. The player who knows they don't want to have genocide in game, for example. During play there will still be _unknown_ quantities that pop up. The player who didn't know that a description of a miscarriage was going to bother them, for example. Even if you have miscarriage on your lines and veils list, the player might not think it will be a problem until they get into the actual game and are faced with the actual description of the event. Dealing with those situations is what during-session safety tools, like the X-card, are for.

To reject the X-card because it is used _after_ a player has a problem is to assume that pre-game or between-session safety tools can perfectly catch every problem. They literally can't. So you have to have something in place for during-session problems. By definition, those can only be use _after_ a player has an issue. The alternative is to ignore that player's problem and trauma during the session, likely continuing along the same track and making that problem and trauma worse. Putting off dealing with that until between sessions is still dealing with it _after_ a player has a problem. You're just putting the flow of the game over the additional problem and trauma that could have been avoided by pausing when the problem came up during the session.


----------



## Malcolm Serabian (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm aware of this.  When someone is suffering from an anxiety disorder you never know what might trigger a response.  Walking down the street on a sunny day and taking in the scent of flowers or hearing thunder in the distant might trigger a response.  I've heard it argued that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.  I'd like to see evidence that this is the case.  Peer reviewed evidence.  I'm asking you the same thing I'd ask people in the 80s who told us role playing games were dangerous because of the potential psychological damage it can cause to participants.  As far as I can tell, the X-Card is there to prevent a problem that doesn't exist.  Players aren't being triggered and having panic attacks at gaming tables across the nation.



From this web site: Facts & Statistics | Anxiety and Depression Association of America, ADAA

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the U.S., affecting 40 million adults in the United States age 18 and older, or 18.1% of the population every year.
so you’re saying 
1. none of these 40M Americans are playing rpgs...
2. or if they are none of them have had a panic attack while playing...

and I can say with 100% confidence that at lease 1 person with medically treated anxiety plays rpgs. Me. And do you know what, I don’t really generally speak of it with casual acquaintances or total strangers.  My gaming group with whom I’ve been good friends with, and playing with since 1980 don‘t know about it.

all that people are asking is for gamers to say here’s an option for people...

I just don’t get what’s so hard about that...


----------



## tetrasodium (May 20, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Except you are*. You're putting 100% of the work on pre-game or between-session safety tools.* If players want their boundaries respected, they must inform you beforehand what those boundaries are, or after a session after those boundaries have already been violated. Further, you're refusing to acknowledge that there is a need for during-session safety tools.
> 
> No, it hasn't. What's been argued is that sometimes things will occur during a session that are problematic that the player did not foresee being a problem and that the player should not have to justify their trauma to the DM in the middle of the session with a table full of other players. Hence the need for during-session safety tools, such as the X-card.
> 
> ...



I don't think he is. The x-card shuts down discussion.  It mentions lines & veils, but everywhere I've seen those they too are seriously flawed in egregious ways that invite misundertandings by not clearly defining what kinds of things to consider & factor into selections on veils while lines are just a discretion shot calling itself a hard limit.  Discretion shots and hard limits are so different that the misuse  resulting omission of an actual hard limit again invites misunderstandings that lead to problems 

Discussion(both before starting & sometimes while playing) in addition to well developed tools are both important but the flaws in the x-card/lines & veils are so serious they prevent discussion & avoid being "well developed" in favor of just being "well known"


----------



## Charlaquin (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> It's a long thread but other posters have said that RPGs are inherently dangerous for some people.



I don’t think anyone has said this but you.


----------



## MGibster (May 20, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> There are people who have disabilities that make wearing a helmet during everyday activities is in fact warranted. There are also people who have had traumatic experiences that make D&D a potentially dangerous activity for them, and there is no way to identify these people visually.






Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think anyone has said this but you.



If I misunderstood you I apologize.  But the above quote sure seems to indicate that you believe D&D is an inherently dangerous activity for some people.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm frequently amazed by the notion that anyone who dislikes the X-Card somehow has a problem with respecting boundaries.  I've actually argued that boundaries need to be established at the beginning of the game not in the middle of it.




That's great... if the folks have a neat short list of things they know.  

But... surprises happen.  This is not limited to, but is especially true of, someone with PTSD - folks can sometimes get triggered by things they did not expect would cause problems.

For surprises, it is wise for folks to have a way to pump the brakes.

And, even for folks who don't generally have problems, especially when dealing with horror, sometimes things can get... a bit much.   Like, maybe the GM starts in on a description of a vomitous mass with too many eyes and rotten teeth, squelching towards the party, and they describe the face of a baby roiling up to the surface...

So, yeah, maybe having a way to pump the brakes is a good idea.


----------



## Pauper (May 20, 2021)

Necrozius said:


> Can there just be another thread about the X card so we can talk about Ravenloft again? I’d like to see more discussion about this review (or of other reviews).



Hear, hear. Let me try to get this discussion onto a more Ravenloft-specific topic. Specifically, despite the impression that much of 'classic' Ravenloft has changed for this book, there's a surprising amount of that classic material that still applies, or can at least inform the current lore, and it's not just the names of old domains.

Out on another discussion board, there's a 'let's read' of the Swords & Sorcery Ravenloft Gazetteers, not in response to the 5E book (the thread was started well before the book was even announced), but it's gone slowly enough so that right now the discussion is up to the entry on Darkon. At one point in the chronicle, 'S' points out that, as a student in Il Aluk prior to the Requiem, she found an old tome that identified the ruler of Darkon prior to the rise of Azalin -- the ruler that Azalin supposedly defeated to take the throne -- as 'Firan Darcalus Zal'honan'.

Knowing that, go back and re-read the sections on p.90 and p.181 of this book; any interesting ideas now bouncing around in your head?

Just because Ravenloft is different in 5E doesn't mean the older lore still isn't usable or relevant to the stories you might want to tell there.

--
Pauper


----------



## Remathilis (May 20, 2021)

Pauper said:


> Hear, hear. Let me try to get this discussion onto a more Ravenloft-specific topic. Specifically, despite the impression that much of 'classic' Ravenloft has changed for this book, there's a surprising amount of that classic material that still applies, or can at least inform the current lore, and it's not just the names of old domains.
> 
> Out on another discussion board, there's a 'let's read' of the Swords & Sorcery Ravenloft Gazetteers, not in response to the 5E book (the thread was started well before the book was even announced), but it's gone slowly enough so that right now the discussion is up to the entry on Darkon. At one point in the chronicle, 'S' points out that, as a student in Il Aluk prior to the Requiem, she found an old tome that identified the ruler of Darkon prior to the rise of Azalin -- the ruler that Azalin supposedly defeated to take the throne -- as 'Firan Darcalus Zal'honan'.
> 
> ...



For all the bellyaching about gender flipped Darklords and redrawn maps, there is a lot of deep cuts in the book. Without specifics:


A number of minor Darklords are name dropped, sometimes Darklords and other times as simply dark residents of other Domains.
Several plot hooks are lifted from the Children of the Night series and MCA 2.
Some of it l the new domain maps have placed towns and villages from the Book of S series.

I'm sure a scholar of the setting could find a lot more than that. There is a Soth reference somewhere!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 20, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> There is a Soth reference somewhere!



Found it - eventually!

Also hints at what happened to Sithicus.


----------



## Azzy (May 20, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Found it - eventually!
> 
> Also hints at what happened to Sithicus.



What page?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 20, 2021)

Azzy said:


> What page?



170


----------



## Azzy (May 20, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> 170



Thank you.


----------



## Voadam (May 20, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think anyone has said this but you.




Four posts before yours.



Necrozius said:


> There is something inherently risky about intense social interactions (especially 3-4 hour games) with complete strangers. Something that happens regularly in this hobby.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (May 20, 2021)

Lieslo said:


> Not sure about the lack of stats for the Darklords given that we have stats for Strahd and other iconic figures such as Tiamat and the demon lords etc. Will be interesting to see how much detail we have on them to help the DM stat them up if they want to use them as the BBEG.



 To be fair they do kind of provide stats in the sense that they tell you what Stat blocks to use for Dark Lords like using Archmage stat in the PHB for Hazlik.


----------



## TheIdeaOfGood (May 20, 2021)

Now having the book in my hands, I am really pleased with it. The safety tools...well, I skipped over them because I play with my friends and know them well enough (to not use spiders as enemies. Like, ever  ) and when I run games at a convention I avoid things that I know to be minefields (violence to children, sexual violence, torture on the PCs, those things) and have never had problems in my 20 years of gaming.
Those who know me know it can get pretty dark but I try and not overdo it.
But, to each their own.
I enjoy the creatures, though I am not too happy with WotC now avoiding alignments in EVERY statblock, even for undead etc. Seems a bit much. Good idea to include the proficiency bonus in every statblock, though. Makes it much easier to " advance" creatures on the fly (4 more HD =+1 Proficiency, also increases the DCs etc.). Thanks a lot for that.
I loved the old Ravenloft stuff, I have the wonderful old Van Richten's Guides as well as all the Sword & Sorcery Ravenloft stuff for 3rd. But, and maybe that's just me, I am not too attached to the old domains. I'd make some of them a little larger but I think the writers did a really neat job.


----------



## Davies (May 20, 2021)

Favorite Updated Domain: Dementlieu. I absolutely _love_ its blend of evil Cinderella and _The Masque of the Red Death_, as well as the hint that Dominic _is_ still around, and what that implies for the bigger picture of the setting.

Least Favorite Updated Domain: Lamordia. There's nothing really wrong with it, and the imagery is great, but I dislike losing the dynamic tension between the created and the creator, who are both monsters in different ways. Elise is portrayed as being a bit too much of an innocent victim of circumstances when compared to Adam's malice. If I were going to use this, I'd stress that she didn't have much of a conscience before all this, and now doesn't have any; yes, some of the people she's killed were trying to kill her, but she's killed people whose only crime was to be in her way, too.

Capsule Domain I'd Most Like Expanded: Klorr. If you've read it, you already know why.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (May 20, 2021)

Davies said:


> Favorite Updated Domain: Dementlieu. I absolutely _love_ its blend of evil Cinderella and _The Masque of the Red Death_, as well as the hint that Dominic _is_ still around, and what that implies for the bigger picture of the setting.
> 
> Least Favorite Updated Domain: Lamordia. There's nothing really wrong with it, and the imagery is great, but I dislike losing the dynamic tension between the created and the creator, who are both monsters in different ways. Elise is portrayed as being a bit too much of an innocent victim of circumstances when compared to Adam's malice. If I were going to use this, I'd stress that she didn't have much of a conscience before all this, and now doesn't have any; yes, some of the people she's killed were trying to kill her, but she's killed people whose only crime was to be in her way, too.
> 
> Capsule Domain I'd Most Like Expanded: Klorr. If you've read it, you already know why.




 I'd like the Eberron one expanded as it and the House of Lament seems to contradict the basic idea that you can't see into a domain from another domain.


----------



## Davies (May 20, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I'd like the Eberron one expanded



You're in luck.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 21, 2021)

Davies said:


> Favorite Updated Domain: Dementlieu. I absolutely _love_ its blend of evil Cinderella and _The Masque of the Red Death_, as well as the hint that Dominic _is_ still around, and what that implies for the bigger picture of the setting.
> 
> Least Favorite Updated Domain: Lamordia. There's nothing really wrong with it, and the imagery is great, but I dislike losing the dynamic tension between the created and the creator, who are both monsters in different ways. Elise is portrayed as being a bit too much of an innocent victim of circumstances when compared to Adam's malice. If I were going to use this, I'd stress that she didn't have much of a conscience before all this, and now doesn't have any; yes, some of the people she's killed were trying to kill her, but she's killed people whose only crime was to be in her way, too.
> 
> Capsule Domain I'd Most Like Expanded: Klorr. If you've read it, you already know why.



Agree.  Maybe they were trying to get away from the original issue with Lamordia - whether Mordenheim or Adam are truly the darklord, and which is the more monstrous?  OTOH, they did keep the "two darklords" thing with Borca.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (May 21, 2021)

Received my copy today! I have never been in contact in any way with Ravenloft before except for hearing the name. I'm pretty excited!


----------



## Remathilis (May 21, 2021)

Savage Wombat said:


> Agree. Maybe they were trying to get away from the original issue with Lamordia - whether Mordenheim or Adam are truly the darklord, and which is the more monstrous? OTOH, they did keep the "two darklords" thing with Borca.



I think they wanted to very specifically pin down that the Doctor is the Monster in this take.


----------



## Davies (May 21, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> I think they wanted to very specifically pin down that the Doctor is the Monster in this take.



Or, possibly, just like they made the revised version of Hiregaard and Malkan much less of a blatant knock-off of Jekyll and Hyde, they also wanted to make Mordenheim _somewhat_ less of a blatant knock-off of Frankenstein.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (May 21, 2021)

Remathilis said:


> I think they wanted to very specifically pin down that the Doctor is the Monster in this take.



Absolutely. Unlike the book and most movie versions, the creature has not turned murderous*, Elise is very much the victim here. The change change of relationship from parent/(rejected)child to romantic is very much a departure too.

*although she may have been a murderer _before_ becoming the creature.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (May 22, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> 170



Can I say that in just a short paragraph or two they outline Klorr as the domain of pretty much everything that has come to pass in Ravenloft already and spun off into the darkness forgotten, a fascinating notion.


----------



## Royalcrown28 (May 26, 2021)

MGibster said:


> There is no system either of us can come up with which will work for all people involved, at all times, in all situations.  So you're right, it doesn't work for players who are not at all comfortable talking to the DM about things they'd rather not see in the game.  But if a player is suffering from that level of anxiety I'm not sure an X-Card would be much help given that they're not used until _after_ the player starts feeling uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> For one moment I'm going to posit that you are correct, for some individuals D&D _is_ an inherently dangerous activity necessitating safe words and safety tools. My priority isn't just the safety of the individual who might be triggered, but the safety and comfort of all involved. If this is the case, then it is absolutely vital that clear and open communication between all participants is established prior to play, that communication is encouraged during play, and the open dialogue continues post game.
> ...



I just want to point out. For something to be inheritant, it must be universal. The phrase: " for some people this thing is inherently X" makes no sense.  Some people are inheritantly sensitive people that respond to things differently. You cannot impose an "inherent" characteristic onto something based on how a small subset of people responsd it. This is called projection.

Please don’t use politically charged language on this forum.  Thanks.


----------



## Older Beholder (May 26, 2021)

Doctor Futurity said:


> Can I say that in just a short paragraph or two they outline Klorr as the domain of pretty much everything that has come to pass in Ravenloft already and spun off into the darkness forgotten, a fascinating notion.




Klorr was probably my favourite of the Domains with brief descriptions. 
The write up for it was absolutely terrifying.

If I was to make one change to the book, I'd probably swap out the short 2 paragraph descriptions and maybe have given a page each to just 3 or 4 of the more interesting ones.


----------



## Mistwell (May 26, 2021)

Anyone have a review of the book to contribute to the book review thread? 

Which is this thread, in case people forgot.


----------



## Cthulhugh (May 29, 2021)

I'll be giving this a wide berth for reasons outlined in The RPGPundit's latest video. Watch that then compare it to this review before you buy.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 29, 2021)

Savage Wombat said:


> Agree.  Maybe they were trying to get away from the original issue with Lamordia - whether Mordenheim or Adam are truly the darklord, and which is the more monstrous?  OTOH, they did keep the "two darklords" thing with Borca.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 29, 2021)

Cthulhugh said:


> I'll be giving this a wide berth for reasons outlined in The RPGPundit's latest video. Watch that then compare it to this review before you buy.



Frankly, “The RPGPundit doesn’t like it” is one of the most glowing endorsements an RPG product can hope to receive.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (May 29, 2021)

Cthulhugh said:


> I'll be giving this a wide berth for reasons outlined in The RPGPundit's latest video. Watch that then compare it to this review before you buy.



Your first mistake was watching TheRPGPundit.

Your second mistake was taking him seriously and thinking he has anything good or insightful to say.


----------



## Azzy (May 29, 2021)

Cthulhugh said:


> I'll be giving this a wide berth for reasons outlined in The RPGPundit's latest video. Watch that then compare it to this review before you buy.



Yeah, no. TheRPGPundit is not someone whose opinion I value in the remotest sense or think is worthy of consideration.


----------

