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+​

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wonder if you would feel the same way, and still buy their products, if Wizards consistently put out the message that you and your beliefs weren't welcome in the D&D community.

I... wouldn't care at all? Because I'm not buying the company or asking it to be my friend or aligning its existence to my sense of self or seeing it as anything more than what it is... a business that makes something I may wish to buy.

Yes, some people boycott companies because one or more views from people within the company goes against what they believe in. They're giving up on something they might want because they don't want to deal with the company. That's fine. That's their choice. But then again... some people don't care what other people's views are within that company because it doesn't impact or affect them in the least. The whole "love the art not the artist" debate.

I happen to be one of the latter. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone in WotC believes in... nor what "messages" are in the books they make. For me, it's

• I look at a book...
• I decide if the book has things in it I'd like to own...
• I buy the book if it does, and don't buy it if it doesn't.

It's as simple as that. But the one thing I don't do is complain about any of the stuff that is or isn't in it. Because WotC is not required to cater to me... nor do I need them to pat me on the head and say "Oh... thanks for buying my book! Here... let me make you feel all warm inside by writing some platitudes in it so you know how much we care about you and how you feel!"

No thanks. Not necessary. You write the book and then maybe I'll buy it. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, Toril and Ebberon are both legitimate worlds. As in, planets. Ravenloft not only isn't an actual world--it's a demiplane, or collection of demiplanes--it has always been totally mutable. Half of the domains were brought from other worlds, and half were created whole-cloth. Even in the black box, IIRC, they talked about Conjunctions that added and removed domains and changed the face of the world.

Over the years, they caused two domains (Borca, Dorvinia) to join together and caused another two domains (Gundarak and Arkandale) to get absorbed into its surrounding lands. They ripped multiple domains out of the Core, flung two of them (G'Henna, Bleutspur) into the Mists, turned one (Markovia) into a literal island at sea (and kept it as a tropical jungle island, right by Switzerland-style Lamordia), and turned the resulting space into the Shadow Rift, which is a legitimate world-wound--and if you enter the Rift in one way, you wind up in Faerieland, but if you enter it another way, you vanish completely. Valachan was positioned on a completely different part of the map, to the point that "S" noted how that change altered the architecture of the country. New domains and even oceans magically appeared at points, and the Nightmare Lands completely disappeared in 3x, as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft is all about making major changes.

Every one of those changes added to the world. Not one of them rewrote history.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I... wouldn't care at all? Because I'm not buying the company or asking it to be my friend or aligning its existence to my sense of self or seeing it as anything more than what it is... a business that makes something I may wish to buy.

Yes, some people boycott companies because one or more views from people within the company goes against what they believe in. They're giving up on something they might want because they don't want to deal with the company. That's fine. That's their choice. But then again... some people don't care what other people's views are within that company because it doesn't impact or affect them in the least. The whole "love the art not the artist debate".

I happen to be one of the latter. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone in WotC believes in... nor what "messages" are in the books they make. For me, it's

• I look at a book...
• I decide if the book has things in it I'd like to own...
• I buy the book if it does, and don't buy it if it doesn't.

It's as simple as that. But the one thing I don't do is complain about any of the stuff that is or isn't in it. Because WotC is not required to cater to me... nor do I need them to pat me on the head and say "Oh... thanks for buying my book! Here... let me make you feel all warm inside by writing some platitudes in it so you know how much we care about you and how you feel!"

No thanks. Not necessary. You write the book and then maybe I'll buy it. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

Does WotC often make things that you don't like? Because, if you've been happy with what they've done so far, then your stance on what you would do loses a little bite.

 

[imagineGod]

Pretty sure what they mean, going by the rest of that section is, don't use bigoted tropes, even if you really like them.

Except bigotry is subjective and differs from culture to culture in the real world and especially fantasy

This is why session zero is important for each play group to decide what tropes are okay for play purposes, irrespective of WoTC suggests, who are not a police enforcement team, just a business.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Does WotC often make things that you don't like? Because, if you've been happy with what they've done so far, then your stance on what you would do loses a little bite.

Well, let me count...

...of the 28(?) or so hardcover books they have produced for 5E thus far, I have bought I believe 13 of them. So less than half. Why only 13? Cause the other books didn't have anything in them that I cared about owning. I mean most of the adventure path books I don't own because I have had no desire to run them.

But I also don't care that WotC produced them. I'm not mad at them for making an Underdark adventure involving demons... two things that don't really float my boat when playing D&D. They wanted to make it... they made it... and I didn't buy it. Which is fine! Why in the world would I get upset at them for it? Even if they had gone ahead and wrote within the pages of the book "The Underdark and the Demon Lords are two of the most iconic and important facets of Dungeons & Dragons, and you'd be a FOOL for not embracing that fact!".

If I read that, I'd simply smirk, roll my eyes, and then wait to see what the next book they made was. That's it.

Because that's all my concern for WotC the company is-- are they making anything I wish to have? To think anything further is in my opinion a waste of my mental energy and time.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Except bigotry is subjective and differs from culture to culture in the real world and especially fantasy

Evidence? Based on the definition of bigotry, you're completely incorrect. Prejudice against someone can't be subjective, it's always objective.

This is why session zero is important for each play group to decide what tropes are okay for play purposes, irrespective of WoTC suggests, who are not a police enforcement team, just a business.

Which is why WotC gave advice on Session 0's in TCoE, warned against using bigoted tropes in VRGtR, and are not coming to your doors to force you to to play the game any certain way.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You could just as easily argue that sheltering yourself and your players is causing unintentional harm.

Wizards could have said, "It's wrong to shelter your players from outdated beliefs." Instead they said, "It's wrong to subject your players to outdated beliefs."

You could just as easily argue that, but should you? Should you be telling people that protecting yourself from racist/sexist/ableist language is just as bad as being targeted by it, or just as bad as spreading racist/sexist/ableist language?

The obvious answer is no. There is absolutely no reason to say that, unless one wants to use bigoted language with a phony excuse for including instead of just saying "I want to include bigoted language/content in my games".

And keep in mind that "subject" means to force that language upon them. If they're fine with including themes where their player could be discriminated against, that's A-Okay as long as you clear that with them beforehand. However, that's not what "subject" means in this context.

Both statements go against the long-held tradition of letting people enjoy the game as they see fit, without shaming them or judging them for it.

For better or worse, Wizards has broken with the past and decided it is now okay to tell players that their fun is wrong.

It's for the better. They're embracing the truth that fun cannot be wrong unless it hurts someone else, which is incredibly important advice to include in a cooperative-social hobby such as D&D. IMO, they should include information like this in the DMG, not just a setting book 7 years after 5e is released.

 

[Dire Bare]

I always felt it should be a Shadow Forest. Which is what it will continue to be in my world, as it's own little floaty domain. I like me some creepy fae (to the point that one of my players has asked me to maybe have some non-creepy fae at times).

It's a shadow forest INSIDE a shadow rift . . . the best of both (mutable) worlds!

 

[Remathilis]

Every one of those changes added to the world. Not one of them rewrote history.

So would another RSE/Grand Conjunction, with a bit of subtle recons and some explantation of how descendants or replacement Darklords took over have worked? Azalin's Hour of Ascension breaks the demiplane into islands, Van Richten escaped a Bleak House, several domains like Verbrek or Sithicus disappear and a the VGR comes out mostly the same but with large chunks of lore explaining how we got there? How many pages of the book do you want this explanation to take up?

I'm being mildly cheeky, but I always feel when these discussions come up, is it the actual changes that annoy people or the fact they changed it. If the had set this version of Ravenloft after the Time of Unparalleled Darkness rather than resetting everything to 735 have made it palatable?

 

[Faolyn]

Every one of those changes added to the world. Not one of them rewrote history.

And since the Dark Powers themselves rewrite and create history all the time, sometimes quite blatantly (memory changes in Darkon, for one), you can easily assume that's what they did this time around as well. All that stuff in the 2e and 3x books happened. The Core once existed. But now the domains are Islands and Falkovnia has always been at war with Zombasia.