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+​

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

They are constantly making changes and tweaks hoping they will improve the game and appeal more broadly. But just because they made a design decision, doesn't mean it was good for the system or one that will bring the most people to the table for the game. I don't know what impact taking alignment out will have. It has always been something people have complained about. but when 4E came out, that addressed things people complained about too, and the fanbase split over it. Not trying to dredge that old argument up. But my point is, D&D is the big show in town, it is the main game. So they need to maintain an appeal to a broad audience. I don't think 'fixing' everything in the game is always the best strategy because what someone finds annoying, is essential to someone else, and it is difficult to strike that balance. When 5E came out, one thing that I liked about it even though I never adopted it was it seemed to be an edition designed to appeal to everyone (I knew old school gamers who liked it, I knew new school gamers who liked it, etc). One reason the new Ravenloft lands a little sour for me (though I will purchase it in order to read it and because I want to support some of the people involved), is doesn't seem to have that same spirit of trying to appeal to older fans and new ones at the same time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)

 

[Mistwell]

You have insisted that alignment is useful

Yes. And the sentence ends there. I have insisted alignment has been useful to me.
So am I lying to you? Are you saying you know what's been useful to me better than I know what's useful to me?
I mean, I can continue to try to explain why I find it useful, but not until we can get past this basic issue: you are either calling me a liar, or telling me you know what's been useful in my games better than I do. That, or you grant you might just have a difference in tastes.
If there is another option than those three, please let me know. But let's stop talking about why I find it useful, and deal with this initial point that you appear unwilling to accept I DO actually find it useful.

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

Not until you answer the basic premise first. It's like you keep asking what type of apple I like, while I am talking about bananas. If you keep telling me I don't actually find alignment useful, and that others don't either, there isn't anything to talk about beyond that. We will have established where you are coming from, and that no conversation will be useful.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I am not seeing how a listing of alignment causes polarization, when all you need to do is ignore it like everyone who opposes it has said they've been doing for years? How does it make your game more difficult?

 

[Charlaquin]

I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)

I think Van Richten’s Guide was absolutely designed to appeal to both old school fans and new school ones, and I have heard from old school fans and new school fans who enjoy it. I’ve also heard from folks who don’t, just as I heard from folks who didn’t enjoy 5e. No product is going to please everyone, this time you just happen to be among the folks this one doesn’t please.

 

[Tonguez]

Tell that to previous editions of D&D, where there's been multiple monsters that are just X, but with a different alignment (for instance, orcs, with their odonti and scro kin).

And take a look at whant ImagineGod is saying: since there's no CE next to Relentless Killer, then "edgy DMs" are going to declare it LG. Clearly, he doesn't think that would happen if it had been given an alignment. Or for that matter, when you said that a LE Relentless Killer might belong to an assassin's guild and had strict rules, while a CE Relentless Killer just wants to see the world burn. The fact that you could think up two different options is good! It means that you have at least two different possible uses for a Relentless Killer even before you sat down and thought up a history and reason why someone became one. But would you have come up with with the assassin Killer if there had been a CE in the statblock? And how many other people would have?

is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - ooh butterflies..."

PS anyone remember what this thread was originally about? I've forgotten

 

[Faolyn]

Not until you answer the basic premise first. It's like you keep asking what type of apple I like, while I am talking about bananas. If you keep telling me I don't actually find alignment useful, and that others don't either, there isn't anything to talk about beyond that. We will have established where you are coming from, and that no conversation will be useful.

No, sorry. You are claiming that alignment has specific uses. It's up to you to now explain those uses.

I find it very interesting that that would have been the fourth time I asked you to explain what use alignment actually has, how it's "useful" to you, and you have refused every time. Instead, each time you immediately threw it back on me, claiming I must be calling you a liar. I have to wonder if this is some sort of projection on your part. I mean, it would be really simple for you to actually provide some examples, and yet you refuse each and every time. Why is that?

 

[Faolyn]

is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - ooh butterflies..."

Now now, not every Relentless Killer has ADOS (Attention Deficit--Ooh Shiny!)

 

[Remathilis]

I'm slowly coming to grips with Alignment's slow death and removal. Mechanically, it's been irrelevant since at least 4e, and the last few books (Frostmaiden, Tasha, Candlekeep, and Van Richten) have shown its being whittled away from:

Races (IWD goliath, VGR lineages)
Deities (Ezra, though it might be a corner case)
Generic Humanoids (IWD)
Generic Monsters (Candlekeep, VGR)
Specific NPCs (VGR)
Specific, Sentient, or Artifact Magical Items (Tasha, VGR)

So, what is alignment used for? Its become a vestigial rule that won't make it past any revision to the game and is in the same boat as fixed ASI as far as dead-rule-walking.

Is its passing going to hurt? Depends. I still liked it, even if it had outlived its usefulness. Maybe it will be healthier for the game in the long run. Still, I can't help but feel a certain part of D&D's identity passing with this. The phrase "Lawful Evil half-orc monk" might not be exact enough to pin down to a specific play, but it was a short way to paint a general picture that you don't get by saying "orc monk with the following ideal/bond/flaw..."

 

[Shadowedeyes]

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.

You can reduce something to 0 HP and knock it out, at least with melee attacks, so no, you're actually wrong about not being able to neutralize a threat without killing it. Regardless, I've seen far less arguments about hit points then alignment, so I still don't buy your argument that they are similar.

In fact, my proof on this? Remove alignment from the game and see how it plays. Pretty much the same. Remove hit points and I bet you're going to be house ruling something real quick.