Review of Castle Ravenloft

[coffeeswiller]

I just had the opportunity to play the Dungeons and Dragons Castle Ravenloft game, and I have to say that I am disappointed. Reviews I have read implied that the game was somewhat of a cross between D&D 4th edition and Betrayal at House on the Hill (an excellent cooperative game with multiple scenarios). I really wanted to like this game. Though not a fan of D&D 4th edition, I did consider that ruleset would make a great boardgame. Sadly, I found this game to be severely lacking.

The way the game is structured, you have a scenario with a win condition known at the start of the game (the sessions I played were an escort mission, and a quest to kill a dracolich). Players then take turns moving and exploring, with player turns working much like D&D turns. The exploration system is my primary problem with the game. You go to the edge of the board, and lay down a random tile. Every tile has a monster, and every monster immediately attacks the character. There is no opportunity for reaction, tactics, etc. There are several reasons why this is problematic.

D&D characters have strengths and weaknesses. Take, for example, the wizard. A wizard's strength is being able to attacks enemies from afar, often multiple ones. Their weakness is typically lack of ability to take damage, represented by a low hit point total. Castle Ravenloft's Exploration/Encounter system heavily penalizes the wizard character for having fewer hit points than the other characters. We came to realize that this character was just not viable for playing.

Another weakness is the Exploration/Encounter system, as I mentioned before. Every exploration reveals an enemy. And while it is nice that all players cooperate, the tactics they use largely make them feel the same.

Another game that occupies this same conceptual space is Descent. Also a dungeon crawl game, Descent has one player operate as the Overlord, controlling the monsters. Its gameplay is smoother and more satisfying, but it does not play so quickly. A better horror exploration game that plays in a similar amount of time is Betrayal at House on the Hill (mentioned earlier). Primarily cooperative, it uses a traitor mechanic that causes one player to unexpectedly betray the party, which sets into motion a story-driven scenario, where both the traitor and the rest of the players have distinct win conditions.

To sum up, this is not a good game. There are planty of other good cooperative games to measure this against. The poorly-conceived systems diminish its playability, and its small number of scenarios limit its replayability. I would seriously consider either of the games previously mentioned above this.

Randy
Growing Up Gamers

 

[MerricB]

The way the game is structured, you have a scenario with a win condition known at the start of the game (the sessions I played were an escort mission, and a quest to kill a dracolich). Players then take turns moving and exploring, with player turns working much like D&D turns. The exploration system is my primary problem with the game. You go to the edge of the board, and lay down a random tile.

Very Betrayal at House on the Hill-like, wouldn't you say?

Every tile has a monster, and every monster immediately attacks the character. There is no opportunity for reaction, tactics, etc. There are several reasons why this is problematic.

D&D characters have strengths and weaknesses. Take, for example, the wizard. A wizard's strength is being able to attacks enemies from afar, often multiple ones. Their weakness is typically lack of ability to take damage, represented by a low hit point total. Castle Ravenloft's Exploration/Encounter system heavily penalizes the wizard character for having fewer hit points than the other characters. We came to realize that this character was just not viable for playing.

Funny: we've played several games with the Wizard and he's managed to survive. Indeed, I've even won a solo game with the wizard.

Every character will normally lose hit points each turn; it's part of the game. Exploring and revealing a new tile will, on average, lose you more hit points than not exploring. So, why are you exploring with the Wizard again?

As in the real game of D&D, a Wizard on his own is weak. He gets better when there are more characters to take the monster hits, and to reveal lots of monsters - scorching burst is a great power that takes out multiple monsters. The rogue and fighter do a lot of damage to one opponent; the wizard deals damage to several at once.

It should be noted that some characters have powers that do allow them to react to the revelation of a monster, it hitting them or an encounter being drawn. You can also cancel encounters later in the game by spending 5 XP - something very, very important if you want to play the game well.

Another weakness is the Exploration/Encounter system, as I mentioned before. Every exploration reveals an enemy. And while it is nice that all players cooperate, the tactics they use largely make them feel the same.

Another game that occupies this same conceptual space is Descent. Also a dungeon crawl game, Descent has one player operate as the Overlord, controlling the monsters. Its gameplay is smoother and more satisfying, but it does not play so quickly.

Unfortunately, Descent has similar requirements as a session of D&D: about 3-4 hours of play time, a DM and 3-4 players. And it's not as satisfying as most games of D&D. That isn't to say that Descent isn't a good game: it is, and I have all its expansions to prove it. However, comparing it to a 45-60 minute light co-operative game that doesn't require a DM/Overlord is a massive stretch.

A better horror exploration game that plays in a similar amount of time is Betrayal at House on the Hill (mentioned earlier). Primarily cooperative, it uses a traitor mechanic that causes one player to unexpectedly betray the party, which sets into motion a story-driven scenario, where both the traitor and the rest of the players have distinct win conditions.

Yes. It is also infamous for badly balanced scenarios. You can have great games... or games which give the traitor no chance or the heroes no chance. It's extremely random.

In contrast, Castle Ravenloft is pretty balanced. The wild swings of fate can go against you (or for you) at times, but mostly you'll end up in the middle. It also allows for more tactical and strategic decisions throughout the game, something lacking from the first half of Betrayal and possibly lacking as well in the second half. (I've had many games when you're reduced to exploring room after room, hoping to find the chamber you need to win the game).

I like both Betrayal and Descent, but neither of them actually are that close to Castle Ravenloft.

Does this mean you're wrong to not like Castle Ravenloft? Of course not. All of the flaws you list are parts of the game that some people won't like. However, most of them exist for a reason, and it isn't bad design: it's just a design you don't agree with.

It should be noted that later scenarios *do* change the basic rules of the game. Some scenarios have not every tile holding a monster, for instance. I generally prefer the later missions, as they're more intricate to resolve than the "find monsters and kill them" of the earlier ones. I'm also not a fan of mission #4, which is badly described and balanced.

Castle Ravenloft is a light, co-operative game for 1-5 players. You enter the dungeons of the Castle to pursue a pre-selected mission. The dungeons are hostile: almost everything there is trying to kill you, and they know the dungeons better than you do. The game is attritional, and you'll be losing hit points and using up your powers and items throughout, but good play will bring you to your goal before you die.

Cheers!

 

[DumbPaladin]

I found your review interesting, even informative, but I also found it odd that you reference Betrayal at House on the Hill as an "excellent" cooperative game -- our game group has never had more problems with a game, due to huge gaps in the scenarios, unexplained concepts, new rules that counteract old rules, monster movement, or a lack of clarity about whether or not a certain pre-Haunt rule is still in effect.

Does Ravenloft have similar poorly-worded scenario problems?

 

[coffeeswiller]

[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]: Sorry, I've been think on your post and have been meaning to post a reply. You have good points. I move a little slow on some things... little kids in the house and all. [MENTION=90770]DumbPaladin[/MENTION] (and somewhat to MerricB): Yes, there are loads of errors. I frequent BoardGameGeek and there are revised downlodads of the rules. I have indeed had unwinnable scenarios, esp. as the traitor, but far more often I've had a blast. Definitely pop over to BGG and check that out. As for Castle Ravenloft, I have not yet seen that.

Randy
Growing Up Gamers

 

[Beginning of the End]

A few points:

(1) The game is actually very tactical, but the tactics are dissimilar from those of 4E. Tactics in the game revolve around tile borders and manipulating monster movement.

(2) The wizard is at a hit point disadvantage. Tactically-speaking, he should not be exploring tiles so that he can avoid the monster ambushes.

(3) I'm guessing you've only played one or two of the scenarios. Keep playing. Several of the early scenarios probably should have been labeled as introductory, since they only thing they do is introduce you to the basic gameplay. That gameplay is well-balanced, but can get a little bland.

Once that gameplay mixes with the more complicated scenarios, however, things get much more interesting.

(4) I would tend to agree that the "always-ambush" mechanic is kind of annoying. Particularly in solo and two-player play.

Here's a simple variant to try:

(a) When a monster appears, make an ambush check for each monster. On a roll of 10+ the monster has ambushed the Hero: The current player draws the monster control card.

If a monster hasn't ambushed the PCs, then their monster control card is drawn by the player to the left of the current Hero. (Which means they won't activate until after the next Hero's turn.)

(b) If multiple monsters appear simultaneously, make a single ambush check for all of the monsters using the largest XP value among the monsters appearing.

(c) On a white tile, draw one monster. On a black tile, draw two monsters. (This is necessary to balance out the fact that the ambush mechanics make the game easier for the heroes.)

 

[GreyLord]

A few points:

(1) The game is actually very tactical, but the tactics are dissimilar from those of 4E. Tactics in the game revolve around tile borders and manipulating monster movement.

(2) The wizard is at a hit point disadvantage. Tactically-speaking, he should not be exploring tiles so that he can avoid the monster ambushes.

So he draws an encounter which will do 1-2 dmg of HP (same as the monster anyways) instead...without even advancing...

Great idea...

(4) I would tend to agree that the "always-ambush" mechanic is kind of annoying. Particularly in solo and two-player play.

Here's a simple variant to try:

So, you want to play a different game instead of how it's published?

yeah, I'm being a little snarky. Maybe if all the encounters weren't...punish them everytime...and the treasures were more useful than either immediates which don't do anything beneficial half the time...or something that is actually useful...I might like the game better.

 

[MrMyth]

The thing is, the fact that the game is a guaranteed slow attrition of hp is what keeps it interesting. It is one of the few board games I've found where the game always feels like it could go in either direction - and while I've won more than I've lost, many of those wins felt very, very close.

If the heroes can attack the monsters first, the game would be trivial. You'd have to up the difficulty in another fashion - give the monsters more hp or other abilities. Or come up with a variant like the Ambush rules presented above - those sound like an interesting way to change things up!

As it is, the constant damage also has the important result of keeping the game quick compared to other similar games that can take 3-4 hours. Anything you do - whether you explore or encounter - can reduce your health. That means you need to be moving quickly to your goal, while also not letting yourself be overwhelmed by enemies. And having those three conflicting elements (stay alive; find the goal; kill enemies) balanced against each other does, indeed, produce a number of tactical decisions you need to make.

 

[Beginning of the End]

So he draws an encounter which will do 1-2 dmg of HP (same as the monster anyways) instead...without even advancing...

Great idea...

A few points:

(1) Roughly half of the dungeon tiles have black arrows. So if you're exploring, you're still running a risk of getting an encounter.

(2) Encounter cards are not universally damage dealing. I don't have the game in front of me, but IIRC there's roughly 20 encounters cards (out of 50 or 60) that don't deal damage. There's another couple dozen or so that only carry a risk of damage.

(3) Encounter cards can be bought off with XP if the wizard draws a bad one; the same is not true of monsters.

Managing your pace of exploration is an important part of the game's strategy. Rushing forward like a Pavlovian dog to explore-explore-explore because otherwise you're "not advancing" is strategically unsound. (Well, for the most part. There are a couple scenarios where that may be the best strategy because of scenario-specific conditions.)

Here's a simple variant to try:

So, you want to play a different game instead of how it's published?

That's generally what the word "variant" means in this context, yes.

Although not exactly, because I'm actually pretty happy with the game's balance as-is. But if someone would prefer not to be ambushed every time they explore, suggesting an alternative that will make the game more enjoyable for them hardly seems like the sin your snarkiness is attempting to paint it as.

 

[MerricB]

So he draws an encounter which will do 1-2 dmg of HP (same as the monster anyways) instead...without even advancing...

Interestingly enough, there are a couple of scenarios where you don't want to explore: you want to deal with what's there instead.

yeah, I'm being a little snarky. Maybe if all the encounters weren't...punish them everytime...and the treasures were more useful than either immediates which don't do anything beneficial half the time...or something that is actually useful...I might like the game better.

The new game with the same system, Wrath of Ashardalon, actually has all the treasure cards as permanent treasures (hooray!).

About 60% of the encounters will probably damage you or your friends; the other 40% just make things worse without damaging you.

Cheers!