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+​

 

[Voadam]

It might be better for them to stop calling it alignment entirely and make it, for instance, "Protection from Fiends/Celestials/Undead" (or preferably something more succinct and punchy, or name it after a spellcasting NPC).

Supernaturals might work as a term. 3e's types could have been outsider with a redesignation of fey to be a subtype of outsider.

 

[Cadence]

And that is ONE (of several) problems with alignment. Each player has a different conception of what alignment means, to the point that one good-faith player could conclude that cultists are basically like demons (and therefore killing them even when they are defenseless is not an issue) with everyone else being horrified at what they consider is an Evil act.

Which is why I disagree with @Mistwell ‘s “it’s only two letters”. It’s only two letters if you don’t bother to explain what Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral (Law-axis), Neutral (Good-axis), Good or Evil actually mean, but if you don’t, you just get even more pointless argument.

Which brings us back to the Relentless Killer. Describing the creature as a hateful, revenge-obsessed relentless killer means that specifying that it is Evil is unnecessary, and there is really no benefit to limiting revenge-obsessed killers in Ravenloft to the Chaotic (or Neutral or even Lawful) alignments.

In that case, couldn't we still easily end up with some good-faith players killing the cultists as the the best solution to a bad dilemma (or maybe not?) to there way of thinking, while the rest are horrified and assume they could have found some way to feed/secure/redeem the cultists even if nothing in the game so far had indicated such would be doable? And the player who did the needful (to their mind) could still argue they were on the side of law and justice and goodness or whatnot?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Just to build on my previous argument, since Relentless killers don’t universally adhere to a single ethos, how would people who disagree with the removal of alignment from stat blocks feel if the designers had instead used the alignment “Any Evil” to identify Relentless Killers?

To me, who does not see a benefit to alignment, I would find that pointless in a “Captain Obvious” manner.

To quote Wednesday Addams, “I’m disguised as a serial killer. They look just like the rest of us”.

 

[Voadam]

Mostly monster alignment is a generalized DM characterization guideline tool. Most players are not able to know if the person or monster in front of them is Chaotic aligned or not, Paladins with at will detect evil being an exception throughout the editions. 3e had a lot of mechanical interactions for alignment with things like anarchic swords and cleric spells that interact differently on targets of different alignments, but 5e has a lot fewer.

 

[Cadence]

Mostly monster alignment is a generalized DM characterization guideline tool. Most players are not able to know if the person or monster in front of them is Chaotic aligned or not, Paladins with at will detect evil being an exception throughout the editions. 3e had a lot of mechanical interactions for alignment with things like anarchic swords and cleric spells that interact differently on targets of different alignments, but 5e has a lot fewer.

How things have changed. In B/X we had "Alignment shows whether the monster is Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. [---] The DM should be careful to play the alignment of each monster correctly."

 

[Kurotowa]

And really, what even is alignment? It started out as a copypaste from Moorecock of the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos and the people who tried to balance in between. Being Lawful meant you were aligned with Team Law, had common ground with other people and factions in Team Law, and even had your own secret Team Law code phrases (aka alignment tongue) you could use to identify and trade messages with other people on Team Law. It was really about what side of the cosmic struggle you fought for.

We've come a long way since then. The introduction of a Good vs Evil axis majorly confused things. The importance of Law and Chaos has heavily faded into the background. There's no more alignment tongues, alignment doesn't mean which cosmic faction you're aligned with anymore, and honestly it mostly gets used for Internet meme charts more than it does any beneficial game purpose. It's a vestige that does no real good and, in some people's hands, an appreciable amount of harm as it's applied to justify inborn moralistic evaluations. That some people are "born evil" and it's okay to kill them on sight and murder their children.

All that's left to justify alignment is that it's a concise personality test result, and that fails too because if you ask three people to define the difference between LG and CG you'll get six different answers. As Whizbang points out, if you want a concise personality summery for an important NPC it's better to have an Ideal/Bond/Flaw chart for them. Just putting LE on there doesn't give any really useful information.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In that case, couldn't we still easily end up with some good-faith players killing the cultists as the the best solution to a bad dilemma (or maybe not?) to there way of thinking, while the rest are horrified and assume they could have found some way to feed/secure/redeem the cultists even if nothing in the game so far had indicated such would be doable? And the player who did the needful (to their mind) could still argue they were on the side of law and justice and goodness or whatnot?

Setting up certain acts as objectively Good and Evil tends to erase nuance, not promote it, and in my experience, approaching challenging issues with nuance tends to reduce OOC disagreements, not increase them. Just acknowledging that killing the cultists is “the best of a bad situation” probably would have avoided some of the conflict rather than stating that it is the Good course of action.

Which leads to the second point. Players have different and personal ideas of what is Good and Evil, and challenging that will likely lead to players getting defensive. If I consider that killing an unarmed criminal is a Good act in certain circumstances, I will take it personally if someone else tells me that they consider it Evil.

Also, playing your character to the alignment tends to put the focus on the alignment, not the character. Each character should have their own conception of what they consider Good, and splitting that into only 9 alignments doesn’t do an effective job of putting the focus on the character.

Plus, Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic is a hot mess, with it being either irrelevant or used like an inept astrological sign for most characters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And really, what even is alignment? It started out as a copypaste from Moorecock of the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos and the people who tried to balance in between. Being Lawful meant you were aligned with Team Law, had common ground with other people and factions in Team Law, and even had your own secret Team Law code phrases (aka alignment tongue) you could use to identify and trade messages with other people on Team Law. It was really about what side of the cosmic struggle you fought for.

Moorcock, especially in later books, is pretty clear that both team Law and team Chaos are bad.

 

[Kurotowa]

Moorcock, especially in later books, is pretty clear that both team Law and team Chaos are bad.

And that's why Mordenkainen and his militant Neutrality made sense as a positive figure. A true victory for either Law or Chaos would be detrimental to the mortal races because as abstract cosmic forces they had little concern for us. Mortals thrived in an environment that was a balance between the two, so the best course was to play both sides against each other. Like a small nation dancing between two superpowers, trying not to get pulled into a proxy war or get absorbed by one rising to full predominance.

Only now, Mordenkainen makes no sense because Law and Chaos aren't organized factions and it's Good vs Evil as the primary cosmic struggle. So we get him "trying to keep a healthy balance between Good and Evil", which is an insane proposition that benefits the mortal races not at all. But he's been codified as trying to keep a balance between the warring cosmic factions, so even though those factions have changed he's still trying, despite it no longer making any sense.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Only now, Mordenkainen makes no sense because Law and Chaos aren't organized factions and it's Good vs Evil as the primary cosmic struggle. So we get him "trying to keep a healthy balance between Good and Evil", which is an insane proposition that benefits the mortal races not at all. But he's been codified as trying to keep a balance between the warring cosmic factions, so even though those factions have changed he's still trying, despite it no longer making any sense.

Dammit, Mordenkainen! Stop breaking into my shop and stealing my pies!

I’m sorry, but ever since they hanged Bartok the thief, there is just too much Law and Goodness in Hommlet. I must act!