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+​

 

[Stormonu]

You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.

And, despite elves (with the exception of drow) being given alignments of good, “evil” ones intent on doing the party harm have shown up over the years - almost as if alignments weren’t absolutes…

 

[Mistwell]

I feel like the alignment discussion is going slightly off topic, but as a tool, alignment had issues. Could WotC tried to fix them? Maybe, sure. But we've had 5 editions of D&D now, and alignment and what it means hasn't been clear in any of them. 3rd edition had Zeus as Chaotic Good, and a Dragon magazine article on how killing drow children wasn't evil, so I feel like I'm being pretty generous when I say that. Frankly, I don't blame WotC for coming to the conclusion that removing alignment is for the best.

I'm not gleeful it was removed or anything, but it was a mess. The writers and editors didn't seem to have a clue what alignment meant, so it's no surprise it was a contentious issue in the fanbase.

ALL DM tools are imprecise and, as you say, "had issues." Maps are published at such small sizes that fine detail in some areas was lost, but I've never heard anyone say "Oh well let's just scrap the maps." Hit Points are really iffy on whether they are meat damage or luck or dodging or divine intervention or what, but I've never heard anyone say, "Oh well let's just scrap hit points." I cannot think of a single DM tool that works perfect, or has ever worked perfect. But, we use them because with experience they can be helpful broad guidelines that save the DM time so they can drill down on their way to play with it. All the tools are a broad abstraction they DMs need to fiddle with at times, but throwing them out because they lack precision and perfection is a bad argument. It would mean none of the DMs side tools ever would be continued if that were a good argument for throwing a rule out.

 

[Mistwell]

5E already has a replacement set of stats that better explain personalities: Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears. While they're imperfect, they much better simulate real personalities than trying to split hairs on whether someone is Neutral or Lawful Neutral because they pay their taxes.

I still think the best personality system in RPGs was the oWoD's nature/demeanor system, which actually has a basis in psychology.

There isn't room in books for all that stuff when two single characters can serve as decent shorthand for most NPCs. If it's a more important NPC then sure flesh it out with Ideals Bonds and Flaws, but on the fly to rando NPC who suddenly becomes more important in the moment because of something the players do, alignment could be really helpful sometimes.

 

[Kurotowa]

You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.

And you'll note that the WotC books are starting to tell us otherwise. I mean, it continues to be true in Eberron, and Tasha's was full of art of orcs and drow, and VRG does away with the humanocentric racial prejudices of Ravenloft in favor of more on-theme horrors. This is a trend I fully expect to continue.

 

[Mistwell]

Since the Relentless Killer is pretty much designed to be either a serial killer or a slasher movie-style killer, the only real choice you need to make is between "Kill everyone it comes across" or "Kill only certain people, such as people who are outside at midnight*, or groups of partying teenagers". And that is up to the DM because that's part of the plot.

(* i.e., the Midnight Slasher)

But if you stuck an alignment up there, you lose that choice--because if all Relentless Killers are CE, so you'd have to make changes, possibly even a new statblock, to have a Relentless Killer who is LE and kills by a strict set of rules.

Now, Relentless Killers are fiends, which in D&D terms means that they're pretty much made out of creature-shaped capital-E Evil. But by bringing back those "two characters" you would also be making all elves Good and all orcs Evil.

You don't lose any choice because CE is next to a monster stat name. Come on, that's silly. It's a baseline broad tool to start with, not a dictate.

Somehow in discussions about "do you ever increase or decrease monster hit points" I have never once heard someone spin that as "you lose the choice once it's written as "HP 56" in the book." NEVER have I seen that argument made by anyone in 40 years of playing the game. But suddenly if "CE" is written next to an NPC stat block I lose the choice as a DM to play it different than CE? Suddenly I need an ENTIRE NEW STATBLOCK because someone wrote CE and I want to play it as not CE? Come on Faolyn, you had to know that was a bit iffy when you wrote that sentence right? I mean sure, it's the Internet and hyperbole is more excused, but you didn't honestly think "CE" could cause someone to re-write an entire stat block, right?

Alignment next to an NPC does not fix them as "all" anything. Much like "HP 56" doesn't fix them as "All of this race must have 56 hit points." Much like "Scimitar +4, 1d6+2 damage" doesn't fix them as "All of this race wield scimitars." It's just a baseline to go off of, like any other DM tool. Why are you treating alignment like it operates under different rules and expectations than all other stats for a DM?

 

[Mistwell]

Alignment isn't crunch; it's a restriction on roleplaying.

It's no more or less a restriction than any other stat. If it says the monster wields a scimitar, is that a role playing restriction which forces the DM to assume they are skilled with that type of sword, or are they allowed to swap it for something else as they see fit? It's of course the later. You use the scimitar as a baseline and work from there, like any other stat. Same with alignment.

 

[Mistwell]

And that is ONE (of several) problems with alignment. Each player has a different conception of what alignment means, to the point that one good-faith player could conclude that cultists are basically like demons (and therefore killing them even when they are defenseless is not an issue) with everyone else being horrified at what they consider is an Evil act.

Which is why I disagree with @Mistwell ‘s “it’s only two letters”. It’s only two letters if you don’t bother to explain what Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral (Law-axis), Neutral (Good-axis), Good or Evil actually mean, but if you don’t, you just get even more pointless arguing.

Which brings us back to the Relentless Killer. Describing the creature as a hateful, revenge-obsessed relentless killer means that specifying that it is Evil is unnecessary, and there is really no benefit to limiting revenge-obsessed killers in Ravenloft to the Chaotic (or Neutral or even Lawful) alignments.

Fortunately the books, for every edition, have gone into some depth on what they mean with a broad range of examples. And they don't have to be exact or inflexible, it's just a rough guideline to start from. If you don't like it, it's easy to not use it. But some people really do like it, and like all additional content the answer of "If you don't like it then just don't use it" should apply just as well to you as it applied when you said it to others about content they didn't like which was added to the game.

 

[Mistwell]

But remove all responsibility from wizard in expressing moral judgement over any ingame creature and so avoiding any rant by so called sensible readers.
And to be honest, leave the DM free to create a more complex narrative. Because in real life good and evil are viewpoint. And twisting the judgment and create complex situations is good storytelling that leads to fun and immersion

Not twisting the judgement and leaving it as more shallow can also be good and fun storytelling.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue for me. You, and many others, seem to be arguing not that you prefer the approach you like, but that it's somehow objectively the correct and "good" approach. And that we should remove anything from the game which doesn't encourage this objectively correct and "good" approach so as to discourage people from taking the incorrect and "bad" approach of playing a more black and white game which doesn't focus on those complexities.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There isn't room in books for all that stuff when two single characters can serve as decent shorthand for most NPCs. If it's a more important NPC then sure flesh it out with Ideals Bonds and Flaws, but on the fly to rando NPC who suddenly becomes more important in the moment because of something the players do, alignment could be really helpful sometimes.

Replacing "Chaotic Neutral" with "Bravo/Soldier" isn't a space or layout issue, come on. And Nature/Demeanor actually tells you something. When you see "Chaotic Neutral" written down, all it really tells you is that you've probably got a problem player at your table. For an NPC, it could mean anything from a poor DM rolling a random die for how the NPC behaves each round to the NPC effectively acting like a Chaotic Evil character who's immune to (prior to 5E) Detect/Protect from Evil spells.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Supernaturals might work as a term. 3e's types could have been outsider with a redesignation of fey to be a subtype of outsider.

That's a good approach.