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+​

 

[Mistwell]

Avocados are bad design! Prove me wrong!

Yeah but there is nothing wrong with liking poorly designed things.

 

[Faolyn]

Not really, no. I don't know where you think that obligation comes from, but it doesn't exist.

You made the claim. It's up to you to defend the claim. Do you not understand how burden of proof works?

I'm not debating if it's useful for you. You can find anything you want useful. But you have claimed that it is objectively useful, even necessary in places, and no different than AC, hp, or weapon stats. Therefore, it's up to you to show how.

If you're not calling me a liar, then what are you saying when you tell me I can't have found it useful?

You keep claiming it's useful. I have asked you how five times now. Each time you refuse.

If you keep asking someone to explain something they've claimed and give some examples, and that person refuses while insisting that their claim is correct, what would you think?

I have not refused to explain why I find it useful,

No you haven't. You just said that it is useful. When I asked you "does this mean all CE people react the same way?" you refused to answer this.

If I post a poll, and in that poll I ask people "Have you found alignment useful in any way?" and some meaningful percentage of people answer "Yes, I've found it useful in some way" what are you going to say to them? No, they have not?

Again, you have claimed:

1: That alignment is just like AC, hp, and weapon stats. That means it has definitive rules to its use. I have asked you to show me those rules.

2: That "two letters" are necessary for determining how nameless NPCs react. I have asked you to show me how.

I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"

And here you claim that person tastes and actual rules are the same thing.

 

[imagineGod]

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.

No taking something to zero HP from 100 HP is the act of pummeling someone into contrition. It is very mentally traumatic if you equate it to a real life situations.

In many other systems not D&D an enemy can be defeated once wounded. Only D&D plays through the turn by turn pummeling of Hit Points ftom full to zero.

Like I said Alignment never killed anybody. Pummeling until 0 HP is worse act to teach children.

The fact so many here rush to defend HP but hate Alignment shows the problem in wanting to eat your cake and still have it in D&D

Those DMs and Players who play D&D like a table top RPG not a simulation of reality have no problem with neither Hit Points nor Alignment. Both are just tools for the DM to manage monsters to challenge the PCs

 

[Mistwell]

You made the claim. It's up to you to defend the claim. Do you not understand how burden of proof works?

I'm not debating if it's useful for you. You can find anything you want useful. But you have claimed that it is objectively useful

I really have not. Truly. Go back through my responses. I thought I'd been pretty clear in never claiming it was objectively useful. But if that was somehow unclear let me clarify. I am saying it's subjectively useful, not objectively useful. When I said if you don't find it useful in your games that's fine, that's part of me saying it's not objectively useful but merely subjectively useful. Some people find some uses for it. Others do not find uses for it. That's subjective usefulness. When I say I think you and I just have difference preferences and tastes for this, that's me saying it's subjectively useful. I have never once said or implied it is objectively useful.

Maybe that's why you keep trying to tell me I don't find it useful? Because you thought I was saying YOU had to find it useful?

 

[Faolyn]

They don't though. I posted the MM language about alignment. It's never been listed as an "all".

Then what's the point of having the alignment in the first place?

Plus I am not even talking about monster books, the context here is a stat block in an adventure right? They can change any stat block to reflect that NPCs alignment. You can have a good aligned orc and an evil aligned orc in the same adventure. We're talking about the utility of alignments being listed in a simple form statblock. Much like if one orc is a "relentless killer" and another or is a "compassionate healer" in the same adventure.

Neither "relentless killer" or "compassionate healer" can be described by a single alignment. Both a Chaotic Evil orc and a Lawful Good one can be described as relentless killers, and both a Lawful Evil orc and a Chaotic Good one can be compassionate healers.

You can't pretend there is some inherent flaw in alignment because it spans an entire race (which it never did in this edition anyway) but then later claim a common descriptor doesn't do the same thing to that race.

If a common descriptor says "orcs are ruthless raiders" then no, it's just as bad as saying "orcs are Chaotic Evil."

Which is why the common descriptors are not saying things like that. Instead, they're using words like "many" or "some," or giving other reasons for their behavior, or other ways they express their "natural tendencies."

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Not once have I argued HP are realistic. So I'm not really sure why you keep saying I am ImagineGod.

 

[Faolyn]

I really have not. Truly. Go back through my responses. I thought I'd been pretty clear in never claiming it was objectively useful.

Then I stand corrected. You didn't say objective.

Which doesn't change that I have asked you six times now to describe how it's useful and you've refused. So far, all you've said is that it acts as a "decent shorthand" without describing how it would determine how an NPC would act.

And you did say it was just like AC, hp, and weapon stats, and have refused to explain how.

 

[Stormonu]

Again, you have claimed:

1: That alignment is just like AC, hp, and weapon stats. That means it has definitive rules to its use. I have asked you to show me those rules.

2: That "two letters" are necessary for determining how nameless NPCs react. I have asked you to show me how.


And here you claim that person tastes and actual rules are the same thing.

With this sort of argument, why don’t you remove Type as well - why do we need to know that goblinloids are type humanoid when it can just be described in the monster entry? What’s that, there are spells that only work against certain types? Like how Protection from Evil works against Lawful Evil creatures?

 

[Mistwell]

Then what's the point of having the alignment in the first place?

We've been around that issue already, remember? The whole "baseline" discussion we had? What's the point of ANY description of a creature, since they can all vary from that description? If you describe an orc as killers, does that mean no orc can be not a killer? If you describe an orc as wearing chainmail does that mean all orcs must wear chainmail? It's ALL a baseline to start from as a generic average description.

Neither "relentless killer" or "compassionate healer" can be described by a single alignment.

No but they can be a single entry in a description of a creature in a monster book, right? Which, exactly like alignment, would imply apparently to you that that's the only type they can be. Since that's the logic you've applied to the alignment listing there.

Both a Chaotic Evil orc and a Lawful Good one can be described as relentless killers, and both a Lawful Evil orc and a Chaotic Good one can be compassionate healers.

But compassionate non-violent healer cannot be described as a relentless killer, right? And yet, an orc (or whatever entry you've put "relentless killer" under) could be a compassionate non-violent healer, right? Are you arguing whatever description is in the monster manual, no individuals of that monster type can vary from the description given?

If a common descriptor says "orcs are ruthless raiders" then no, it's just as bad as saying "orcs are Chaotic Evil."

But EVERYTHING in the description eliminates some other options for them if you're taking descriptions as written in stone.

Which is why the common descriptors are not saying things like that. Instead, they're using words like "many" or "some," or giving other reasons for their behavior, or other ways they express their "natural tendencies."

But that IS EXACTLY what the alignment entry says. Go look up "Alignment" at the beginning of the MM. the entire entry for all monsters is saying "many" and "some." It's implied by the entry..and all the other entries for all the creatures, including equipment and ability scores and AC and hit points and attacks etc.. It sounds like you applied some special condition on the alignment entry which you didn't apply to any other part of the monster stat block or description?

 

[Mistwell]

Then I stand corrected. You didn't say objective.

Which doesn't change that I have asked you six times now to describe how it's useful and you've refused. So far, all you've said is that it acts as a "decent shorthand" without describing how it would determine how an NPC would act.

And you did say it was just like AC, hp, and weapon stats, and have refused to explain how.

I didn't refuse. I gave you examples (with details: I explained how an assassin might follow an internal or external code of conduct for their kills if they are listed as lawful or a more random approach if it's listed as chaotic, for example), you argued with me about them, and then followed that up claiming I didn't find them useful.

So OK, I guess thanks for finally acknowledging that I can find it useful even if you do not? Not sure why you're dwelling so much on why I find it useful since I am not trying to persuade you to use alignment in your games?

All I've ever been saying is "There is this content in the game which I and some meaningful number of people find useful in some way, and which has some iconic branding surrounding it which is somewhat useful for marketing purposes. Some other meaningful number of people do not find it useful. But because some do find it useful, and it's easier to ignore a rule you don't like than it is to add it back in if you do, I'd prefer it be kept in the game by default even if it's listed specifically as optional."