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+​

 

[Minigiant]

That's always been the tension of Ravenloft, hasn't it? Is Ravenloft still fundamentally a D&D game or is it trying to be a dedicated horror RPG. Some versions have tried very hard to escape being D&D and rewrite the rules towards that end. This book leans more towards still being D&D, with everything that goes with that.

That's not a quality issue, it's a design choice. One that won't satisfy everyone, because no choice ever does, but personally I think it's the right one. If I want to play a dedicated horror RPG, rather than a heroic fantasy hero in a horror setting, I'd break out CoC or WoD.

Not to really bring other discussion here but I don't think it's an either or thing. They could have easily added variant rules to tone down the power of PCs and pull them down from herioc (new class HD, reprint slow resting rules, combat horror).

Doing Ravenloft as only dark heroic fantasy was a choice. It worked. But personally I think there were better ones.

 

[Kurotowa]

Not to really bring other discussion here but I don't think it's an either or thing. They could have easily added variant rules to tone down the power of PCs and pull them down from herioc (new class HD, reprint slow resting rules, combat horror).

Good news. They did! There's a section on playing Survivors with lower stats and less heroic scale abilities. There's also optional rules for fear and stress, too. It's just these sections are not the main focus of the book. They have limited page count and aren't presented as the default. The default focus is on Ravenloft as a D&D game, and good for them.

 

[Minigiant]

Good news. They did! There's a section on playing Survivors with lower stats and less heroic scale abilities. There's also optional rules for fear and stress, too. It's just these sections are not the main focus of the book. They have limited page count and aren't presented as the default. The default focus is on Ravenloft as a D&D game, and good for them.

It's not playing your character and their abilities. They could have squeezed a table and a paragraph in there.

Heroic fantasy should be the default but if you are selling me on playing my character in dark scary fantasy in Ravenloft, you should provide it as an option. Sure "your DM can do it". However I can't be a newbie DM and anexperienced DM at the same time. Cater to both.

 

[Malmuria]

Mostly it seems to come from folks who thought the old things had value,

The changes people seem to be objecting to are things like changes to the gender of various NPCs, and the changes to alignment and races are exactly the things that are being done to make the game less essentialist and less inherently manichean in its morality. Those are the exact changes made to try to make the game more inclusive.

and don't think they had to be changed or swept aside so completely to appeal to modern audiences.

"swept aside" seems like hyperbole. But yes it seems like the Vistani are no longer awful stereotypes

Wizards did a pretty good job of making a game that appealed equally well to the majority of old and new players, and struck a balance between inclusive changes and respecting the game's roots. So this new strategy doesn't seem necessary.

there are plenty of older gamers who also want the game to be more inclusive (and actually wotc has struggled and continues to struggle on that front...)

 

[Democratus]

Dungeon Craft (youtube channel) gives a very good and balanced review of the new book. And I largely agree with it.

There's great stuff in there. But 5e D&D is poorly suited for many types of horror.

YMMV

 

[Helldritch]

I just finished reading the book my self this evening. After about 6 read through, I too agree with PDM of dungeoncraft. It is almost as if I would have made the vid myself...

But, contrary to PDM, I still do like the book. It just did not went far enough on the horror genre as character in 5ed are on the super heroe side .

Also, Ravenloft has always been the most human centric of all the settings in D&D. So playing a demi, a non human character should have drawbacks that should be felt by the player. Ravenloft is about the darkside of humans, it should have been more prominent.

Of course I realize that this book will be used by younger audiences as well, but putting a warning on the cover and making a much darker book could have been a good choice. Just like they had done with the Book of Vile Darkness.

Still, I do find the book to be quite useful, especially the tables and monsters. It just dis not went far enough in the genre.

 

[JEB]

The changes people seem to be objecting to are things like changes to the gender of various NPCs, and the changes to alignment and races are exactly the things that are being done to make the game less essentialist and less inherently manichean in its morality. Those are the exact changes made to try to make the game more inclusive.

I suggest you go back and read through the various threads on these subjects (races, alignment, Ravenloft), and try to take in the full range of complaints. Most of said threads are very long, admittedly, but they indicate there's more to the objections than stuff like "they made Victor Mordenheim a woman".

Also, not everyone agrees that those elements need to be removed or replaced entirely in order to make the game more inclusive. For example...

But yes it seems like the Vistani are no longer awful stereotypes

The Vistani appear to be a good example of how you can fix something problematic while still tying it in with past portrayals. They're different from the old stereotypes, thankfully, but not so different than they're unrecognizable.

there are plenty of older gamers who also want the game to be more inclusive (and actually wotc has struggled and continues to struggle on that front...)

Agreed! And that includes folks who like the recent changes, and folks who don't. Whether or not you want the game to keep your favorite old Ravenloft domains doesn't reflect on how inclusive you are...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But this isn't about "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry." This is about actually using bigoted tropes against your players. This is about things like having NPCs actively discriminating against or trying to harm your PC because you decided to play "the wrong type of character."

Yes, of course, you can have bigots in a game, but a lot of the times it was, as you say, pointless bigotry. It wasn't something that allowed the players to explore the issue, or to find interesting ways to get around it or hide from it. It didn't add anything to the game.

Yeah I just think it's important to draw the distinction because I've seen people literally suggest you can't even have bigoted characters or societies in the game. I agree though it's both boring, annoying and potentially upsetting to have "We don't like your kind round here..." bigotry re: PCs. It also tends to be weirdly directed only at certain characters who fit classical tropes for being hated, when realistically, the behaviour and nature of a much larger portion of PCs would attract contempt/bigotry from people who are like that.

 

[Espadadelaaurora]

After a couple of readings I have to admit that I'm very happy with this update of a classical setting, hope this trend continues in the near future. What I miss are the alignment entries in the monsters stat blocks, imho they were a good starting point in how to portray a typical individual of that kind. I know the reasons behind that omission, but I hate when things are ruled out instead of use it as you see fit.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal).

Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.

This is a proof of how the choice between freedom of speech and protection of susceptibility can be hard to balance. And this hardness is due to the extreme variability of individual susceptibility specially when boosted by the intrinsecal turbo charger effect of social media. Like satanic panic even this cultural movement will end up in coming back from fondamentalistic approach toward a more reasonable dimensions. But not before reaching some paradoxical parossism.
Given that, Ravenloft is a good book with some point of eccellence. Sure there are some hypocritical and non sense concessions to sensitivity issue but nothing we can cope with some common sense.

In regard to "this cannot be included regardless could be consensual" this is undoubtfully a censorship approach. Wotc is simply trying to find a balance considering its customers wide base.