Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft Review Round-Up – What the Critics Say

Now that you've had time to read my review of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, and the book officially arrived in game stores on May 18, it's time to take a look at what other RPG reviewers thought of this guide to horror.

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

The last few D&D books had a lot for DMs. Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft tops them all. Players will get a lot out of it, too, but VRGtR is a feast of useful, imagination-sparking material—and that's not entirely limited to those who like horror. The Demiplane of Dread known as Ravenloft is...

www.enworld.org

Terrifyingly Awesome...​

Games Radar not only ranked VRGtR one of the best D&D books ever, they also praise it for taking a fresh approach to the decades-old RPG. GR notes that the chapter on domains could have become repetitive quickly, but instead it's packed with creativity.

VRGtR transformed the reviewer at The Gamer from someone uninterested in horror into someone planning a horror masquerade adventure. While they praise VRGtR for its player options, they like the information for DMs even more. That ranges from the new mechanics that replace the old madness rules to advice for DMs on how to create compelling villains.

Bell of Lost Souls praises VRGtR for how it makes players think about their character's stories, not just in terms of backgrounds but also through the Gothic lineages, how they came about, and impacted the character. They also like all the tools DMs get plus an abundance of inspiration for games. They actually like the fact that Darklords don't have stats because if they do, players will always find a way to kill them. Overall, they deem VRGtR “indispensable” for DMs and as having great information for everyone, which makes it “a hearty recommendation.”

Polygon was more effusive calling it “the biggest, best D&D book of this generation” and that “it has the potential to supercharge the role-playing hobby like never before.” As you can tell from those two phrases, Polygon gushes over VRGtR praising everything from the new character options to safety tools to its overflowing creativity, and more. They compliment the book for being packed with useful information for players and DMs.

...And Scary Good​

Tribality broke down VRGtR chapter by chapter listing the content, and then summed up the book as being both an outstanding setting book and horror toolkit. They especially like that the various player options, such as Dark Gifts and lineages mean that death isn't necessarily the end of a character, but rather the start of a new plot.

Gaming Trend also praised VRGtR, especially the parts that discourage stigmatizing marginalized groups to create horror. They also considered the information on how to create your own Domain of Dream and Darklord inspiring. For example, it got them thinking about the role of space in creating horror, and how the mists allow a DM to drop players into a Domain for a one-shot if they don't want to run a full campaign. GT deemed VRGtR “excellent” and then pondered what other genres D&D could tackle next, like comedy adventures.

Strange Assembly loves the fact that VRGtR revives a classic D&D setting, and especially focuses on the Domains of Dread. They like the flavor of the Gothic lineages but not that some abilities are only once a day, preferring always-on abilities. Still, that's a small complaint when SA praises everything else, especially the short adventure, The House of Lament. VRGtR is considered an excellent value and worth checking out if you like scary D&D.

Geeks of Doom doesn't buck the trend of round-up. They really enjoyed the adventure inspiration and DM advice but especially appreciate the player options. agrees They really like the flexibility that's encouraged – and the new version of the loup-garou.

The Final Grade​

While none of these publications give out a letter grade, the superlatives VRGtR has earned makes it pretty easy to associate ratings to each review. Games Radar, The Gamer, Polygon, and Bell of Lost Souls are so effusive in their praise that they would obviously be A+. Gaming Trend, Tribality, Strange Assembly, and Geeks of Doom also praise VRGtR, though their language isn't quite as strong or they have a very minor critique. That would make their reviews at least an A. Adding in the A+ from my own review, and Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft grades this product by which all others will likely be judged in the future:

A+​

 

[Necrozius]

This should certainly put paid to any notions that going younger or more diverse might in some way reduce quality. The direct contrary appears (unsurprisingly to me) to have happened.

This isn't wholly surprising to me. Newer generations of writers and designers are connected to a far wider group of peers than ever before. It is vastly easier to learn and gain inspiration from others, by example or dialogue thanks to the internet and availability of material (physical and digital).

I'd also argue that game design has evolved too (just as desktop publishing, illustration and typography). Combined with a greater awareness of Accessibility (in the sense of a greater awareness of how humans cognitively interpret things, with or without barriers or disabilities), newer generations have found ways to make content more usable to greater audiences.

Some will say otherwise, but we've come a long way from the AD&D Game Master's Guide or the Rules Cyclopedia. Sacred cows of course, but damn it, they were a mess, objectively, compared to what we have now. Nostalgia is a nice thing, cut c'mon people, be real.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, let me count...

...of the 28(?) or so hardcover books they have produced for 5E thus far, I have bought I believe 13 of them. So less than half. Why only 13? Cause the other books didn't have anything in them that I cared about owning. I mean most of the adventure path books I don't own because I have had no desire to run them.

But I also don't care that WotC produced them. I'm not mad at them for making an Underdark adventure involving demons... two things that don't really float my boat when playing D&D. They wanted to make it... they made it... and I didn't buy it. Which is fine! Why in the world would I get upset at them for it? Even if they had gone ahead and wrote within the pages of the book "The Underdark and the Demon Lords are two of the most iconic and important facets of Dungeons & Dragons, and you'd be a FOOL for not embracing that fact!".

If I read that, I'd simply smirk, roll my eyes, and then wait to see what the next book they made was. That's it.

Because that's all my concern for WotC the company is-- are they making anything I wish to have? To think anything further is in my opinion a waste of my mental energy and time.

Fair enough. Cheerfully withdrawn.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So would another RSE/Grand Conjunction, with a bit of subtle recons and some explantation of how descendants or replacement Darklords took over have worked? Azalin's Hour of Ascension breaks the demiplane into islands, Van Richten escaped a Bleak House, several domains like Verbrek or Sithicus disappear and a the VGR comes out mostly the same but with large chunks of lore explaining how we got there? How many pages of the book do you want this explanation to take up?

I'm being mildly cheeky, but I always feel when these discussions come up, is it the actual changes that annoy people or the fact they changed it. If the had set this version of Ravenloft after the Time of Unparalleled Darkness rather than resetting everything to 735 have made it palatable?

Actually, while I still wouldn't have liked many of the actual changes they made, I would have been happier if they had provided explanations that advanced the world rather than rewrote it, thank you.

 

[Mercador]

I just find that all the reading and adherence to canon never really meant much to players if they didnt keep up on setting lore so I just started making up my own storylines. I found that from 1E through 3E in parts you could read up on a certain area between the 3 editions and find whole sections reprinted verbatim. Thats when I stopped caring. Then when they did change things it was so radical I didnt really want to implement any of it into my game.

Wow, that's so bad... I wouldn't liked buying books with my limited budget at that time to see only verbatim sections... Thank you for letting me know, I didn't know that.

 

[Faolyn]

What I'm saying is, xenophobia, fear of the other, is a historically accurate reaction to certain circumstances, including many of the statuses quo in the domains. If you're not depicting it as right, but rather an unfortunate cultural reality that should be fought against, and its existence doesn't specifically offend those you're playing with, is it still unacceptable to include it? The issue of slavery's depiction in RPGs raises the same issue. It's a kind of evil, more real than vampires and werewolves. As long as it is seen as evil, why can't it be in the game?

It can be, but why?

Don't forget, you're playing a game, not writing a historical novel. What fun does it bring to the table to tell a player "if your character goes in to that location, they will be discriminated against or possibly harmed because of who they are"? I've done that: I homebrewed caliban for 5e, and in another game I run, had discrimination against tieflings, and I now regret both of those because, well, it doesn't bring anything fun to the table.

Bigotry is an evil, yes, but not an evil that can be stopped like you can stop a vampire. Yeah, you can easily do the thing where the character proves that they're as worthy as any non-discriminated-race/sex/class/caste/whatever, but that's something the character would have to keep on doing, with each new group of bigoted people they meet, and it's exhausting.

And often, the player may have to do that in real life as well. I know people who never play humans because they have to be one in real life. In the same vein, who would want to play someone who's a member of a disliked group if they are already in one in the real one.

 

[R_J_K75]

Wow, that's so bad... I wouldn't liked buying books with my limited budget at that time to see only verbatim sections... Thank you for letting me know, I didn't know that.

Unfortunate but its true. Usually the material was expanded on but a paragraph here and a paragraph here would crop up again and again, in more than one place. The one that comes to mind is Waterdeep and the North, the 2E City of Splendors Boxed Set and the 3E City of Splendors: Waterdeep hardback. If I had to guess probably City Systems too. They all dealt with the same location. Don't get me wrong, there was value in purchasing the products but a little disappointing when I came to the realization, "Hey didn't I just read that last night"?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don't forget, you're playing a game, not writing a historical novel. What fun does it bring to the table to tell a player "if your character goes in to that location, they will be discriminated against or possibly harmed because of who they are"? I've done that: I homebrewed caliban for 5e, and in another game I run, had discrimination against tieflings, and I now regret both of those because, well, it doesn't bring anything fun to the table.

I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.

It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.

I'm not saying that the older Ravenloft situation was good - it wasn't - it was mostly "pointless bigotry", that didn't serve to characterise the bigots, nor define the setting, nor really added anything. The more recent "don't care" or "used to it" attitude in the new Ravenloft obviously works better as a base.

So I think it helps to draw a distinction between pointless society-wide bigotry and the specific bigotries of certain groups and communities and individuals. And also between stuff that mirrors real-world bigotry and stuff that doesn't.

 

[Kurotowa]

I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.

It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.

It also also depends on what the player finds fun. Sometimes the player rolls a tiefling because they want to play out an uplifting tale of overcoming societal prejudice through heroism, and sometimes it's because they want cool demon powers. The first is going to feel cheated if no one bats an eye at them and the second is going to feel stifled if they're always getting kicked out of taverns for no reason.

Once again, the key is to talk to your players and find out what they're interested in playing out.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.

It also depends whether the bigots are good guys or bad or neutral or w/e.

I'm not saying that the older Ravenloft situation was good - it wasn't - it was mostly "pointless bigotry", that didn't serve to characterise the bigots, nor define the setting, nor really added anything. The more recent "don't care" or "used to it" attitude in the new Ravenloft obviously works better as a base.

So I think it helps to draw a distinction between pointless society-wide bigotry and the specific bigotries of certain groups and communities and individuals. And also between stuff that mirrors real-world bigotry and stuff that doesn't.

I include bigotry in my campaigns. I've included it in Eberron against Warforged, but kept it light and mostly implied instead of explicit, I've included it in my Wildemount campaign with the war between the Kryn Dynasty and Dwendalian Empire, and I've included it in my own homebrew world to be a story hook for many adventures in the world. My world's example is in the spoiler below.

Spoiler: The Felshen and the Yikkan Goblinoids

In my homebrew world, there's a race of people that were created hundreds of years ago by mages, alchemists, and fleshweavers to be a fully reproducing and sentient humanoid race. They started our basically as sentient Flesh Golems, but eventually evolved into a psionic race of people, the Felshen, who have their own culture and settlements dependent on their psionic abilities and innovations. However, the goblinoids of my world (excluding the Verdan) worship the "deity" of Magic, the Yikare, being called the Yikkan Goblinoids, and they despise the practice of psionics and are completely against the meddling/creations of life/souls. From their belief system, the goblinoids see the Felshen as soulless abominations practicing a dark art that is destroying the world, so they persecuted them, originally trying to eradicate them from the world, but when that failed they settled for other forms of discrimination. The Felshen see the Goblinoids as bigoted oppressors that have always sought after the destruction their people when they did nothing to provoke them except for existing. The wars between the Felshen and the Goblinoids is a long and messy one, with neither side coming out of the conflicts with their hands clean. Though the Goblinoids and Felshen are currently bound by a peace-deal that other races forced them to agree to due to their wars' effects on the bystanders and the world around them, these two groups of people still hate each other and have extreme rivalries.

The Yikkan Goblinoids don't acknowledge the Felshen's right to exist, and the Felshen rightfully have a less than favorable opinion of the Yikkan Goblinoids. The most extreme Yikkan Goblinoids essentially want to commit genocide, with the most common attitude from the Yikkan Goblinoids on the matter now being "Okay, you get to live, but you don't get to use your inherent psionic abilities". The most extreme Felshen want to destroy the Yikkan Goblinoids' society, and some even want to enslave/kill them for what they've done to their people, but the most common attitude from the Felshen is that the Yikkan Goblinoids need to stop discriminating against them and make up in some way for the atrocities that they have committed against the Felshen people.

Neither side is completely in the right in my world's example, and there's no easy way to solve the conflict. This is what bigotry is like in the real world. It's messy, it's complicated, and there's no easy solution. The most respectful way to include bigotry in campaigns/worlds is to have it be realistic and not just a fact of life that people have to live with or leave the table. My world's example of bigotry is made clear to my players when starting a campaign in that world. They can choose to involve themselves in the conflict as much or as little as they want, and they don't have to be a Felshen or Goblinoid if they don't want to have it included in the campaign. IMO, that's a better way to deal with bigotry in worlds and campaigns. If they don't want to deal with it, they can ignore it. If they want to get involved in it, they can. Even if they choose to be a Felshen or Goblinoid, they won't automatically become involved in the conflict unless they choose to go to a Goblinoid/Felshen settlement/NPC. It gives the players the power to choose if the campaign deals with this topic if they want to, and also the power to ignore it if they would rather not deal with it (another upside of this is, unlike real world bigotry, this conflict is completely made up and there aren't any bad real world consequences for doing so).

 

[imagineGod]

Evidence? Based on the definition of bigotry, you're completely incorrect. Prejudice against someone can't be subjective, it's always objective.

Which is why WotC gave advice on Session 0's in TCoE, warned against using bigoted tropes in VRGtR, and are not coming to your doors to force you to to play the game any certain way.

Exactly where is this universal objective definition of bigotry that is not just a theoretical exercise and is agreeable to the whole world or even just all Americans?

Because what I see are different people across different cultures unable to even agree upon the tropes of evil Monstrous races within Dungeons and Dragons.

Hence, there is no objectivity only subjectivity on who sits round your table.

And Dungeons and Dragons is designed around each individual table with the Dungeon Master final arbiter. And no two DMs are the sane nor do they pass a universal degree course in Dungeon Mastering, hence, even more subjectivity driven by the makeup of each different table.