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+​

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Hit points and Alignment are a bad comparison. HP are not realistic, but they are simple to understand and clear in how they work. Alignment is not clear and not realistic. While they can be used as a tool in certain circumstances, I'm dubious that it works any better than any other way to describe a creature/NPC's motivations. The only thing it has going for it is a bit of an iconic status in the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, I always advocate for more content in D&D. However, IMHO, "alignment" is a whole different matter. I have already ignored alignment in my campaigns way before this change was made, so I did exactly what I have recommended others to do. However, I still am pleased to see this change made. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, if that's what you are trying to paint me as.

As a wise man once said, “when you don’t have an actual argument, you vaguely gesture at imagined hypocracy.”

 

[imagineGod]

Hit points and Alignment are a bad comparison. HP are not realistic, but they are simple to understand and clear in how they work. Alignment is not clear and not realistic. While they can be used as a tool in certain circumstances, I'm dubious that it works any better than any other way to describe a creature/NPC's motivations. The only thing it has going for it is a bit of an iconic status in the game.

If we wish to go all pedantic on Hit Points, they too create an unrealistic expectation to injury. Based on Hit Points alone, a creature could be on the brink of Hut Point death, but is still totally fine and healthy like it was on full Hit Points. No life altering injuries, no brain trauma, all perfectly healthy from 20 HP dropped to 1 HP.

But luckily, since D&D is just a game, unrealistic depictions of violence and its after effects are just that, a tabletop ruleset, not reality.

 

[Faolyn]

But it does, for me. I've told you I've found it does perform that job at my table. Other have mentioned they also find it useful in that same way. Either everyone is lying to you, or you simply have a difference in tastes. So which is it?

You have insisted that alignment is useful when the PCs decide to engage with a nameless NPC. I have asked you to tell me how an alignment/NPC combination--such as Chaotic Evil shopkeeper--actually gives you, the DM, information, and what that information is. And whether or not that information is the same for all CE NPCs (in which case, it would be useful information) or different depending on what sort of NPC it is, the current situation, and how the PCs treat the NPC (in which case, it's not useful information). I've asked this, what, three times now? And each time you've just deleted my question and implied that I'm calling you a liar.

Additionally, you've said that alignment is no different than AC, hp, or weapon stats (and therefore very important). Since those things have very specific, objective rules attached to them, I have asked you to tell me what the specific, objective rules are for alignment. Again, each time you've just deleted my question.

Furthermore, you keep waffling between alignment being an important tool, without which it's all but impossible to run an encounter with an NPC without stopping the game and pondering on the matter, to it being a nothing more than a "matter of taste" So which is it?

So. Are you planning on answering any of my questions this time?

 

[Shadowedeyes]

If we wish to go all pedantic on Hit Points, they too create an unrealistic expectation to injury. Based on Hit Points alone, a creature could be on the brink of Hut Point death, but is still totally fine and healthy like it was on full Hit Points. No life altering injuries, no brain trauma, all perfectly healthy from 20 HP dropped to 1 HP.

But luckily, since D&D is just a game, unrealistic depictions of violence and its after effects are just that, a tabletop ruleset, not reality.

That still doesn't refute my point that hit points, while unrealistic, are easy to understand and use. You have hit points and you are not dying until you have 0 of them. For the purposes of the game, it works.

By contrast, Alignment is not easily understood. Which makes it's use in the game one that tends to spark arguments(You wouldn't do that! You're Lawful Good!) rather arbitrate anything, like hit points and whether you are dying. So, comparing the two is, in my opinion, not a good way to justify alignment's existence.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

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.

Frankly: no.
There is no right approach.
If you want a morally polarized world you can and it is right at least for you.

But a not morally polarized game allow raw to polarize it. On the contrary a morally polarized game doesn't allow raw to avoid polarization.
In brief is easier to house rule toward polarization than the contrary, so I prefer the choice to remove alignment.

 

[imagineGod]

That still doesn't refute my point that hit points, while unrealistic, are easy to understand and use. You have hit points and you are not dying until you have 0 of them. For the purposes of the game, it works.

By contrast, Alignment is not easily understood. Which makes it's use in the game one that tends to spark arguments(You wouldn't do that! You're Lawful Good!) rather arbitrate anything, like hit points and whether you are dying. So, comparing the two is, in my opinion, not a good way to justify alignment's existence.

Arguments happen regardless. Hit Points have encouraged murder in game because no matter how badly beaten a creature gets from 100 HP to 1 HP it can do as much damage on its turn as if nothing happened. So you get arguments, like we cannot stop fighting that creature until it is killed by dropping to zero Hit Points (abd dying in 5th Ed or negstive HP in older editions). .

You do not get that argument to kill or not to kill creatures in games that have significant injuries that can neutralize a threat without killing it dead.

If you think alignment is bad design so are Hit Points. Basically, HP removes the mechanical incentive of defeated but not dead. In D&D a 1 HP enemy remains undefeated and deadly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Alignment can be very useful when it comes to things like how a magic item or supernatural effect impacts a character (for example things that only target evil, only target chaos only target good, etc). It is also useful in a setting like Ravenloft when evaluating an action to decide if it warrants a powers check and what percentage that ought to be. It is also useful for determining how NPCs behave, and it is a useful way to inform players what their actions are doing to their characters (when the GM changes your alignment from good to neutral or neutral to evil, that is significant)

It isn't a perfect system. It has serious flaws. That is why not every RPG has alignment. I would argue thought that some kind of alignment system is pretty essential to D&D the same way HP are. If I am going to play D&D, I tend to expect alignment, class, levels, races, HP, attributes, etc. Otherwise I would just play another game. And I think that is an important point for people to take home: you can always play other games. I hardly ever play D&D these days because there are games that do things differently that deal with some of the criticisms people are raising, and do it well. I think rather than change D&D, which has an essence that you can disturb with too many changes to its core, it is often better to seek out other games. Honestly I think the hobby would be much better off if people played less D&D and more of other games (there was a time before d20 where this was quite common)

 

[imagineGod]

In short, alignment never killed anybody. Hit Point loss did.

Yet, suddenly, alignment is bad wrong fun for D&D.
Yet, Hit Point attrition until death is perfectly fine.

It is just a game, those are just tools to help the DM use monsters.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In short, alignment never killed anybody. Hit Point loss did.

Yet, suddenly, alignment is bad wrong fun for D&D.
Yet, Hit Point attrition until death is perfectly fine.

It is just a game, those are just tools to help the DM use monsters.

So why do you think WotC removed Alignment but not Hit Points?