Wednesday, October 29, 2025

REPOST: Retrospective: Ravenloft

I give Dragonlance a lot of grief – deservedly so, I think – for the role it played in forever changing both Dungeons & Dragons and the way it's been sold, but Dragonlance was merely expanding on ideas first put forward in earlier modules penned by Tracy Hickman, particularly 1983's Ravenloft. Unlike the Dragonlance modules, which, even at the time, I liked more in theory than in practice, I used to love Ravenloft. It's easy to understand why. Module I6 is a very "moody" piece of work, unlike most previous AD&D modules, which achieved their moods much more haphazardly or at least less self-consciously. Ravenloft's evocation of Gothic horror was also unlike most other modules at the time and, given my relative unfamiliarity with that genre of fiction – I'd not yet read Dracula in 1983 – I found it all very compelling.

There are other factors too in why my youthful self loved Ravenloft. Strahd von Zarovich, while sporting one of the most ridiculous faux Eastern European names in gaming, seems tailor-made for referees looking for a pet NPC. He's immensely powerful, well nigh indestructible, and fun to roleplay – an angst-ridden anti-hero before White Wolf made such things a staple of the hobby. That he's the central figure in a story that provides a backdrop to the PCs' actions only made him more attractive. Moreso than most modules published before or at that time, Ravenloft is about its villain. The actions of the PCs are, in many ways, beside the point, because their sole purpose is to help to facilitate a melodrama of lust, betrayal, despair, and love beyond the grave in which NPCs are the primary actors.

And then there were the maps. Dave Sutherland's three-dimensional maps of Castle Ravenloft were amazingly innovative for the time, providing a superb sense of how all the pieces of this vast dungeon – for dungeon is it was – fit together. I know I drooled over these maps for many hours as a younger man and, even now, looking at them, I find it hard not to be won over by them. The problem, of course, is that, in play, they're quite unwieldy and sometimes even a little confusing. I'd go so far as to say that they're emblematic of Ravenloft itself: attractive, innovative, and a clear break from the past.

Now, I think it's all too easy to emphasize how much Ravenloft differed from its predecessors. At the same time, as I just noted, this is still, at base, a dungeon crawl and an occasionally non-sensical one at that. For all its Gothic horror trappings, we sometimes find monsters not at all in keeping with that style of writing. Likewise, there's plenty of low humor, especially puns, to be found in the module. The names on many of the tombs in the castle crypt – "The Lady Isolde Yunk (Isolde the Incredible). Purveyor of Antiques and Imports," for example – are outrageously bad and make Gary Gygax's own efforts seem subtle by comparison. These puns wrench one back from the Gothic atmosphere other parts of the module are trying desperately to evoke. 

The module also uses a method of placing important NPCs and magic items based on "fortune telling" with a deck of playing cards. It's actually a very clever idea and, from my memory of playing the module long ago, it's effective and lends something to the atmosphere. Plus, my icy old school heart melts when random generation is involved in such a significant way. Effective though it was, the card reading system made me wonder at the time if it was introduced partly to give the module re-playability. That is, because certain important NPCs and items were placed in Castle Ravenloft randomly, the system could, in theory, ensure that each playing of Ravenloft would be different. Brilliant! The problem is that no one is going to Ravenloft more than once, because, as it is written, you can't. Dungeon crawl it may be in many ways, but there's no overlooking the fact that Ravenloft tells a story and a heavy-handed one at that. Not only does it have a prescribed conclusion, complete with Harlequin romance level dewy-eyed sentimentality, but, ultimately, what the PCs do just doesn't matter, since everything in the module is designed to support a predetermined conclusion.

Ravenloft is, like the "Desert of Desolation" series (also by Hickman – I see a pattern here), a transitional module. There's still a great deal of old school design in its pages. There are lots of tricks and traps, for example, and Castle Ravenloft itself is a monstrous labyrinth of rooms, corridors, and crypts, making for a very non-linear portion of the game. It's also a very unforgiving module, with death around every corner, particularly if the players are foolhardy enough to try and take on Strahd without adequate preparation. Of course, unlike the later Dragonlance modules, Ravenloft can afford to be a death trap, because – and I hate to keep harping on this – the PCs' actions don't really matter. Strahd and his story are the main attraction here and it makes little difference whether a player loses a dozen characters along the way so long as he eventually has some character who's able to be present to witness the melodramatic conclusion the Hickmans have in store for them. That's a pretty big crime in my book and, while new and innovative at the time, it laid the foundation for much mischief later.

I still have a fondness for Ravenloft despite it all, but that fondness is born mostly out of nostalgia and that's fine. I don't think Tracy Hickman is the Devil any more than I think L. Sprague De Camp was. Nevertheless, I don't think it's possible to deny that, in both cases, these men planted seeds that would eventually bear bitter fruit. We're still wrestling with the consequences of design decisions Tracy Hickman made in 1983. The adventure path style of play, for example, is a direct descendant of modules like "The Desert of Desolation" series, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance, which represent an about-face from the more open-ended, sandbox play of the old school. The fetishizing of "super NPCs," whose actions overshadowed those of the PCs, got a nice boost too with the creation of Strahd von Zarovich. Neither of these things necessarily had to become the abominations they would one day be, but the immense popularity of Ravenloft made it hard for them to avoid this destiny. I think, with some work, Ravenloft could be remade into a perfectly acceptable and throughly old school module. That's more than can be said of the Dragonlance modules, so, in the final analysis, I'd have to say that module I6 isn't wholly without virtues, even if they are buried beneath even greater vices.

19 comments:

  1. Nice evisceration. You flexed some writing muscles here. I haven't read Ravenloft, and your review makes me glad I didn't waste my time. I have a question about your hatred of story heavy, railroady games and Pendragon 1e: I haven't read it yet, but I presume that it avoids the Super NCP problem by making the story of Arthur more remote, or like a backdrop, while the PCs get to have Old School adventures (where their decisions mean something) with Arthur's story as the background. Am I right? I ask bz I presume Pendragon has been accused of the problem you're criticizing here. But you love it and dislike these other games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pendragon is interesting because the player knights may eventually join the Round Table and interact with big NPCs, but the published scenarios (mostly) assume they're doing their own things parallel to the major events of Arthur's reign. So, for example, they might participate in a major battle or become involved in the Grail Quest, their actions are significant in their own right rather than just playing second fiddle to Lancelot or Gawaine or whoever. It's a delicate balance but, for the most part, I think Chaosium has gotten it right.

      This might be worthy of its own post.

      Delete
    2. I'd love to read a post on it.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't say time spent with Ravenloft was wasted, nor is that the takeaway I got from JM's retrospective (this repost, or the original - the commentariat on that one was fun, you should have a look!) And not having read it - we always talk about reading them these days, rather than playing them, somehow - is an odd position on an OSR blog; love it or hate it, there's no question that Ravenloft was/is a touchstone for an entire generation. Not a member of that generation, fine, the OSR is large; but to not know Ravenloft at all? It's fine, it's just not a perspective I'd have expected. Live and learn.

      To Pendragon, I think a recently covered adventure, The Grey Knight, is a great example. You could absolutely run that as a railroad, giving the players no agency at all. It's bad blood between Arthur and the old dead King, there are set pieces that 100% have to happen, npcs that have to escape no matter what, the final combat has to be between Gawain and the Knight, etc. But that would be a mistake, and untrue to the way DiTillio wrote the thing. All along the way, the adventure gives referee notes "If the players do x" or "do y" and assumes that the pcs can and probably will muck things up. In Ravenloft, James is right - throw enough pcs at it, and the fairytale ending is going to happen sooner or later. In The Grey Knight, I think it's actually pretty tough to reach the conclusion and get the "right" ending, with the whetstone in Gawain's hands, no trouble with the elves along the way, mum about Morgan's part in the whole thing, what have you. If a railroad means a certain ending is unavoidable, Pendragon's Grey Knight show how you can plot and still end up with the opposite of a railroad.

      Delete
  2. A well written, insightful post that still holds up today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What module would you describe as the first actual (railroad-type) abomination?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent question. I shall have to ponder it a bit, but I welcome suggestions.

      Delete
    2. Temple of Death had some well-executed railroading (you HAD to end up in some specific town) but I don't think that one would qualify.

      Obviously Ravenloft: in its quest to provide a consistently epic finish, it sacrifices some really great elements of a rich journey, and ends up diminishing the end in the process.

      But the first actual abomination? It stands out for me fairly clearly:

      The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror - I consider it to be the first "railroad setting" adventure.

      The Spell Restrictions were irrelevent except if you happened to have a magic user fully stocked on them. I'm all for surprise magic limitations, but the fact that these specifically handicapped only one player (if any at all!) was kind of dumb.

      Its dependence on/independence from Dungeonland serves as sort of a "nonsense" railroad: it doesn't really matter what players do, but they need to do it anyhow!

      The gimmick of the game is roleplaying Alice in Wonderland, and the goal is to avoid being murdered by and also murder every character from Alice in Wonderland.

      It is the product of a clever, harried mind, and while the intention was to provide a break and a light - if deadly - creative funhouse, the result is a plodding - if deadly - surprise railroad that never fooled anyone.

      I actually think Dungeonland/Mirror could have been combined into a 64-page supersetting, with literally no objectives (other than, perhaps, to find an exit portal), more fully modular so as to attach its entry into any magical trap in any dungeon or wilderness setting. That would have been innovative.

      As Mirror plays, however, it is just the 2nd part (notice I didn't say punchline) to an inside joke.

      So, while it is more mineable than DL or even Ravenloft, as an actual setting/adventure/module, it really kicked off everything I hate about the skinsuit abomination today called D&D: 1 - telegraphed "surprises", 2 - pre-improvised creativity, 3 - lack of player agency, 4 - (albeit modest) lack of PC agency 5 - a necessarily dependent plot (i.e. Players plug into the module, rather than module plugs into the existing setting.)

      I think it is interesting that both Hickmans' Ravenloft and Gygax's Dungeonland/Mirror were borne out of their respective home games. Gygax inserted Dungeonland into any existing dungeon whenever the players (or, more likely, Gary himself) got bored, whereas Hickman developed Ravenloft over years of careful, dramatic construction of the setting and events.

      I think Ravenloft would have worked better as its own placeless keep or setting for 9th level characters to exercise the development of their own fiefdoms, whereas Dungeonland clearly would have worked better had it been marketed as a campaign supplement.

      Delete
    3. “2 - pre-improvised creativity”

      What do you mean by this? Shouldn’t there be creativity when prepping a setting/location for adventuring?

      Delete
    4. This probably speaks to the sort of group we were (and I still am), but we hated both Alice in Dungeonland and Alice's Adventures Beyond the Mirror. Full stop. I'd like to say it's because we were overly serious kids but no, we knew the source material (Lewis Carroll is good stuff, sure), we "got" it. It was just, well, inane, and not how we wanted to spend our gaming time. No harm, no foul.

      Listen, full disclosure: the hateful Castle Greyhawk mockery (and that's what it was) is a black mark on the hobby, but there are times when it does hit a little close to home in its, ahem, satire. Gary could get pretty far up his own ass with his puns and his nigh obsession with Carroll, EX1 & 2 weren't the only ones.

      Delete
  4. Either due to DM incompetence or dogged improvisation, my group absolutely broke Ravenloft back in the day. We ended up voluntarily becoming Strahd's henchment, lost levels and alignment, got turned into vampires and ended up as a party of nocturnal diplomats for "Bavaria" (Somehow we played through the whole campaign not realizing we were pronouncing it wrong. I always thought Strahd was German!)

    Ravenloft didn't divide us like DragonLance did, though, and I really think it is because for whatever reason, no one comprehended the Hickman engine, and simply treated it as a skipable option, much like psionics.

    By the time we got to DragonLance, however, the DM was a true believer in Hickmania, while the players were mixed, and I was decidedly resistant. It didn't seem this way at the time, but I think our campaign in DragonLace, as insane as it was, and seemingly more "open world" than the experience of others, nonetheless divided us in subtle but significant ways. I don't think the true believers ever played with us again, and the remaining ones did not last for very much longer in D&D. Within two years, I was the sole remaining player of any RPGs, and my former fellows acted as if they had never played the game at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although I have to admit that I never played Ravenloft (either in this edition or the more recent D&D 5e one), but I doubt I would like it today. By now, I have consumed so much 'vampire' fiction (movies, tv series, books, etc.) that I genuinely find them boring; I doubt you could come up with something truly new at this point. Having said that, I still have the 2023 'Last Voyage of the Demeter' movie on my to-watch-list, as at least the premise seems like something fresh (and despite already knowing how the story ends up).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

      As someone who has also glutted on vampire fiction of a wide array, but still eagerly seeks out more, particularly in non-modern settings...

      Demeter had a great premise and beginning...and then failed to keep me fully engaged. I was so excited to see it, and after viewing I was much more impressed with the set(s) than the movie as a whole.

      Delete
  6. It seems we are of like age and similar experience, but I choose a different take on the value of Ravenloft and the Desert modules. These were all great reads that provided a very interesting alternative to "kill things and take their stuff" that my group had kind of shelved by the mid 80s. Plus we rarely, if ever, experienced modules as designed. So I see this just as a tool...and it isn't the tool's fault if it is misused.

    As such, the more heavily plotted modules were as much fiction-in-alternate-format and sources of ideas. So, like you, I was astonished by the maps in 1983, and liked the clever bells and whistles like the Ultima 3esque "randomization"...but the limited ability of the PCs to impact the inertia of Strahd, for instance, wasn't much of an issue. Being the butterfly flapping its wings that leads to a hurricane, or the squire that makes it so the knight wins the day, didn't seem as big of a deal to me back then, but of course YMMV.

    The march to story-heavy products and the successes of even those where the PCs provide aid to the real movers and shakers suggest that this was a likely evolution even if Hickman never rolled a non-6-sided-die in his life. As such, even in retrospect I revel in the production value and the quasi-originality (is that a thing?) that captured me in 1983 or 84 (I think I got it pretty soon after it came out, but a couple months after release it was 1984).

    So in a lot of ways this felt like a high-water mark, not the harbinger of doom, to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ravenloft is really cool as an adventure setting. That setting is smoothed shiny by the "dramatic" foregone conclusion. In fact, I think both Hickman's originally intended it to be a stand alone gothic game called Vampyr, with some players taking the role of the Burgomaster and his adopted daughter. I believe, but could be wrong, that the castle complex was pared down for the module.

      Ravenloft as published was always supposed to be a twist on D&D - from the gothic setting, other planar access point, a "big boss" that was far more than a bag of hit points and XP. It was inspired by the way Tracy played the game, then put on steroids.

      As a streamlined megadungeon for multi-session campaigns, Ravenloft works great. It is especially replayable, even - not because of the tarot card trick gimmick, but because of the characterization of Strahd (who, as his thralls, our party devotedly called "Count Chockula" which he of course never understood) - if you simply alter (or at least deviate from) the rails.

      DragonLance is an entirely different animal.

      Delete
    2. "So in a lot of ways this felt like a high-water mark, not the harbinger of doom, to me." - Can't it be both?

      Delete
  7. I wasn’t alive when it was published, but I kind of wonder if the shift to more plot and story based adventures was necessary to attracting theater nerds to D&D. I wonder if we get things like Critical Roll or even Vampire the Masquerade without Ravenloft.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great review!
    I like the challenge of turning this module into a true old-school adventure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My impression on reading Ravenloft is the party are trapped and the only possible outcomes are Victory or Dearh? Is that fair?

    And Victory is unsatisfying if you suspect a DM thumb on the scale. And a TPK is unsatisfying if you feel you were forced into it.

    ReplyDelete