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+​

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

This argument was started by several people objecting to VRGTR removing alignment and criticizing it over it. So it seems that the argument is more over a small number of people insisting that alignment MUST be included.

 

[Mistwell]

I have had a lot of discussions with people who insist that you can't have good-aligned orcs beyond the occasional exception because they're an evil race.

I've always pretty much ignored alignment. That's one reason I'm glad it's gone. It was just a useless bit of info that caused problems.


So... what you're saying here is that (A) character background, personality traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, that sort of thing, monster descriptions, your purpose for the creature in your adventure... completely useless for determining how an NPC acts;

I am going to stop here. I know you wrote a lot more than this, but you're starting out with a clearly snarky, hyperbolic strawman. For no reason. It wasn't justified by the tone of our conversation, and it was a jerky thing to do. You know that isn't what I was saying, I had already gone to great lengths to explain that wasn't what I was saying, and you turned to that for reasons which frankly are not OK for a conversation like this.

If you change your mind, let me know and I am happy to engage with you some more on this. But I think it's fair for me to draw the line when someone does that.

 

[Mistwell]

This argument was started by several people objecting to VRGTR removing alignment and criticizing it over it. So it seems that the argument is more over a small number of people insisting that alignment MUST be included.

I have not seen that, but I don't think it "must" be included. But, I find it a handy tool. And if you remove that tool, I hope additional shorthand information is included to fill most of the gap left by the utility of that tool being removed. Like, "Capricious/Cruel" in the stateblock to represent at a quick glance some common attitudes of that NPC.

 

[Malmuria]

All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that.

This actually seems like kind of an edge case? If your players are interacting with an NPC in a social encounter, the context of the situation would be more likely to drive the improv for DMs. If they are an important NPC, you should already have some sense of their motivation and methods. If they are a random guard or shopkeep, the context of what the players are trying to do and how they are acting would guide how the NPC reacts. In a more antagonistic context (e.g. a dungeon), a tool like a reaction table would be more useful than alignment.

If rando gnoll NPC comes up in a game where I didn't expect it would need to, I am not opening the MM to read all about gnolls. I am glancing in the moment quickly at a stat line and coming up with something on the fly, and the alignment will be part of the tools used to do that. As will intelligence, wisdom, charisma, equipment, and possibly their physical stats as well. Do most gnolls have a reputation for being chaotic evil? If yes, then either I am making this gnoll chaotic evil too OR I am quickly coming up with some reason why they break from that reputation, all influenced by the context of the encounter and setting we're playing in.

You're just adding an extra step, which is counterproductive if you are concerned with using alignment to make a snap decision. You already have "the context of the encounter and the setting." But you're going to look at the stat block, see "chaotic evil," and then decide on the fly why this particular gnoll is not chaotic evil but some other alignment, assign that new alignment to the gnoll, and then interpret how the gnoll would react based on that and the context and situation.

On the other hand, removing alignment from the stat block does not solve the problem they are ostensibly trying to solve. The first two sentences of the 5e gnoll description read, "Gnolls are feral, hyena-headed humanoids that attack without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh. Gnolls are feral humanoids that attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh."

On the one hand, it takes 5 seconds to read those two sentences and they convey the general vibe of the gnoll about as efficiently as the "chaotic evil" in the statblock. However, even this short description implies much about the default dnd setting. We know that there is a CIVILIZATION and Gnolls--all Gnolls--are not part of this Civilization. They are humanoid, like elves and halflings and humans, but in a "feral" way, seen by the fact that they devour the flesh of their victims, a connotation of cannibalism. And this civilization has settlements along its "frontiers" and "borderlands." So we know this Civilization is expanding via its settlements, and the Gnolls are a threat to this expansion, and its implied that the PCs are part of the former and will be contending with the feral-ness of the latter, whether or not they are officially "chaotic evil." It's a settler colonial fantasy.

This isn't about Ravenloft anymore obviously, my apologies. But I think the whole discussion around alignment it shows the problems that WOTC is going to have in trying to change the game, and the risk they they will end up satisfying no one.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I have not seen that, but I don't think it "must" be included. But, I find it a handy tool. And if you remove that tool, I hope additional shorthand information is included to fill most of the gap left by the utility of that tool being removed. Like, "Capricious/Cruel" in the stateblock to represent at a quick glance some common attitudes of that NPC.

Well, the genesis of the argument in this thread was that the "Relentless Killer" who is described as "hateful" and "revenge-obsessed" lacks an alignment. I think you would agree with me that specifying an alignment for the "Relentless Killer" is completely unnecessary.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I didn't understand your reply to mean "Bravo/Solider" since you wrote it as, " Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears." I thought you meant at least a full sentence (or more) of information like you find on character sheets. If all you mean is replace it with two words, then I can see that maybe working. We're going to need a better chart I think for the meaning of various Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Fears, but I don't think that's any more or less a burden than alignment charts (and honestly the one thing I'd improve about 5e is easier access and better formatted charts and indexes for a lot of things).

The two words are the oWoD style nature/demeanor. The Chaotic Neutral NPC in question is a bully (bravo) under the surface, but presents himself as a hard-nosed soldier on the surface. That, to me, gives us a lot more sense of who the NPC is than "Chaotic Neutral" does, which could mean almost anything, as every internet discussion about alignment ever tells us.

 

[Mistwell]

This actually seems like kind of an edge case? If your players are interacting with an NPC in a social encounter, the context of the situation would be more likely to drive the improv for DMs. If they are an important NPC, you should already have some sense of their motivation and methods. If they are a random guard or shopkeep, the context of what the players are trying to do and how they are acting would guide how the NPC reacts. In a more antagonistic context (e.g. a dungeon), a tool like a reaction table would be more useful than alignment.

I am saying it from experience for 40 year now. I wish it were an edge case, but players are just not as predictable as that and they do the unexpected frequently. I really don't like to railroad so I give players the freedom to color outside the lines. I find depending on tools like the shorthand provided by alignment is crucial to keeping the game going smoothly when the unexpected happens.

You're just adding an extra step, which is counterproductive if you are concerned with using alignment to make a snap decision. You already have "the context of the encounter and the setting." But you're going to look at the stat block, see "chaotic evil," and then decide on the fly why this particular gnoll is not chaotic evil but some other alignment, assign that new alignment to the gnoll, and then interpret how the gnoll would react based on that and the context and situation.

Often I don't decide to change the alignment. It's only if the context suggests I might consider that, that I will change it. I don't find it to be an extra step at all.

On the other hand, removing alignment from the stat block does not solve the problem they are ostensibly trying to solve. The first two sentences of the 5e gnoll description read, "Gnolls are feral, hyena-headed humanoids that attack without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh. Gnolls are feral humanoids that attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh."

On the one hand, it takes 5 seconds to read those two sentences

Those two sentences will not be there in the random encounter table or short stat block I am looking at. I know in general what gnolls are like (it's an easy example) but a lot of monsters I like an alignment prompt as a generalization.

and they convey the general vibe of the gnoll about as efficiently as the "chaotic evil" in the statblock.

But CE is two characters and those sentences are a lot more than two characters so they won't appear in any shorthand statblock.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, the genesis of the argument in this thread was that the "Relentless Killer" who is described as "hateful" and "revenge-obsessed" lacks an alignment. I think you would agree with me that specifying an alignment for the "Relentless Killer" is completely unnecessary.

It's not completely unnecessary as it still adds something on the lawful-chaotic scale, like I mentioned earlier. Does he adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Does he appreciate destruction for its own sake? Those kinds of questions have a suggested answer by alignment which isn't well suggested by the description you gave.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not completely unnecessary as it still adds something on the lawful-chaotic scale, like I mentioned earlier. Does he adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Does he appreciate destruction for its own sake? Those kinds of questions have a suggested answer by alignment which isn't well suggested by the description you gave.

Say you're writing an adventure that has a Relentless Killer. Do you want it to adhere to an external or internal code of conduct? Do you want it to appreciate destruction, or do you want it to feel compelled to destroy, and therefore only feels relief upon doing so? Why did it become a Relentless Killer in the first place? (Remember, they're fiends who started out as normal people.) What makes more sense for the adventure you will be running?

These kind of questions won't be answered by including an alignment. Especially in Ravenloft, where every monster should have a backstory explaining why it became a monster in the first place. You're not supposed to just run them out of the book.

The Relentless Killer is clearly based on characters such as The Midnight Slasher, from the second Ravenloft MC Appendix Yeah, there's an alignment there, because 2e. But that alignment tells you absolutely nothing--it's the Slasher's background that explains the why behind the murders.

 

[Mistwell]

Say you're writing an adventure that has a Relentless Killer.

Naw if I am writing the adventure it doesn't matter. Heck if I am writing the adventure I might have scrawled a name and race and profession on a scratch sheet of paper and that's it. This is more for stuff others have written that I grabbed.

These kind of questions won't be answered by including an alignment. Especially in Ravenloft, where every monster should have a backstory explaining why it became a monster in the first place. You're not supposed to just run them out of the book.

They won't be answered by ANY stat block. Again (and I cannot stress this enough), I am not talking about important NPCs with full back stories. I am talking about the NPC I didn't expect the players to focus on, who is suddenly part of the focus.

I think I've said that about a half dozen times now, and everyone who responds eventually gets around to this same strawman. What's with that? I know you saw me describe this aspect at least twice in parts you participated in - so why are you claiming everyone has a backstory when of course not everyone has a backstory in adventures you buy!