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+​

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You can take away alignment and players are still going to kill orcs on sight, unless told otherwise.

Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them.

And, despite elves (with the exception of drow) being given alignments of good, “evil” ones intent on doing the party harm have shown up over the years - almost as if alignments weren’t absolutes…

If they aren't absolutes, why the hell should they exist as the basis of a planar cosmology meant to explore extreme absolutes (Plansecape)? Also, Shadar-Kai are very much not "good" in the classical sense, and most other elven subraces also are more "chaotic" than "good" (eladrin and sea elves particularly).

Even if they aren't absolutes, that doesn't make them any more correct or useful, IMO.

 

[Voadam]

Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them.

Did you have an all orcs are evil prior stance?

Did you also change orcs' other description aspects when you took away alignment?

In 3e era I house ruled alignment to be supernatural forces only and divorced from morality so all people not aligned with gods and other aligned supernatural power were neutral. Including all orcs. In keeping their descriptions the same as in the Monster Manual but taking away the CE entry they were still generally marauding hostile bad guys as a base and individual orcs could be different just like individual dwarves could be different from general dwarf descriptions.

I did not notice any different PC treatment of orcs in my game before and after taking away alignment designations for the monster manual entry in my game.

If I had instead also switched to using Eberron style druid culture orcs as a base description I imagine the player treatment of orcs might have been different.

 

[Mistwell]

Replacing "Chaotic Neutral" with "Bravo/Soldier" isn't a space or layout issue, come on. And Nature/Demeanor actually tells you something. When you see "Chaotic Neutral" written down, all it really tells you is that you've probably got a problem player at your table. For an NPC, it could mean anything from a poor DM rolling a random die for how the NPC behaves each round to the NPC effectively acting like a Chaotic Evil character who's immune to (prior to 5E) Detect/Protect from Evil spells.

I didn't understand your reply to mean "Bravo/Solider" since you wrote it as, " Ideals/Bonds/Flaws and, now, in Ravenloft campaigns, Fears." I thought you meant at least a full sentence (or more) of information like you find on character sheets. If all you mean is replace it with two words, then I can see that maybe working. We're going to need a better chart I think for the meaning of various Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Fears, but I don't think that's any more or less a burden than alignment charts (and honestly the one thing I'd improve about 5e is easier access and better formatted charts and indexes for a lot of things).

 

[Mistwell]

Not in my campaigns. Once I told my players "orcs are not always evil, and I'm getting rid of alignment", orcs immediately stopped being kill on sight. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but again, it trumps claims made with no evidence to support them.

If they aren't absolutes, why the hell should they exist as the basis of a planar cosmology meant to explore extreme absolutes (Plansecape)? Also, Shadar-Kai are very much not "good" in the classical sense, and most other elven subraces also are more "chaotic" than "good" (eladrin and sea elves particularly).

Even if they aren't absolutes, that doesn't make them any more correct or useful, IMO.

LOL we don't even have planescape in the game yet in any meaningful way, and you're arguing that is a reason to get rid of alignment?

Again, if they are not useful for you, that's fine. For some of my campaigns they've been useful, and for others they have not, though I think they've always been at least momentarily useful to some extent to me as a DM. But nobody is telling you that you must use them. I am asking why you're unwilling to accept they are useful for a fair number of people, on some level, and part of the core identity of D&D as well which has some value (non-D&D fans recognize D&D alignments in memes because it's so much a part of the branding)?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Did you have an all orcs are evil prior stance?

Yep. Orcs were "kill on sight irredemable evil Gruumsh worshipping monsters".

Did you also change orcs' other description aspects when you took away alignment?

Not really. The race overall still worships Gruumsh, often are raiders/hunters, and still have their conflict with Goblinoids. I took away the alignment, made it clear that some orcs (typically the ones that abandoned their society) could be good, neutral, etc, and then they went from "kill on sight" to "other people with a different culture to be fought only if they provoke us".

In 3e era I house ruled alignment to be supernatural forces only and divorced from morality so all people not aligned with gods and other aligned supernatural power were neutral. Including all orcs. In keeping their descriptions the same as in the Monster Manual but taking away the CE entry they were still generally marauding hostile bad guys as a base and individual orcs could be different just like individual dwarves could be different from general dwarf descriptions.

I did not notice any different PC treatment of orcs in my game before and after taking away alignment designations for the monster manual entry in my game.

If I had instead also switched to using Eberron style druid culture orcs as a base description I imagine the player treatment of orcs might have been different.

I only used Eberron orcs in Eberron (my new world, which I started developing well after I made this change, has orcs similar in culture to the Eberron orcs, but they're different and I didn't change this in my games until after removing alignment).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

LOL we don't even have planescape in the game yet in any meaningful way, and you're arguing that is a reason to get rid of alignment?

We do have information in the DMG and PHB on the Great Wheel and Sigil, so we have a bit of it. It's like how Dungeon of the Mad Mage contained a bit of Spelljammer by adding a Spelljamming Helm and adventure on an asteroid in space.

I'm not using Planescape as a reason to get rid of alignment (which is already gone now). I'm using it to demonstrate how useless alignment was before. Planescape is supposed to be a setting of absolutes taken to an extreme level, using alignment as a basis for it. Doesn't it kind of invalidate the whole idea of planescape if the fundamental ideas it is founded upon are not actually absolutes?

Again, if they are not useful for you, that's fine. For some of my campaigns they've been useful, and for others they have not, though I think they've always been at least momentarily useful to some extent to me as a DM. But nobody is telling you that you must use them. I am asking why you're unwilling to accept they are useful for a fair number of people, on some level, and part of the core identity of D&D as well which has some value (non-D&D fans recognize D&D alignments in memes because it's so much a part of the branding)?

Then still use them. D&D police will not come to your door to force you to drop alignment. If your table has fun with it, that's all that matters. However, going forward, monster stat blocks and character races won't have alignments attached to them, which benefits my tables. I'm sorry if it negatively impacts yours. Again, I stress that I have never advocated for this change to come in the middle of 5e. There's no reason to get angry at me.

 

[Faolyn]

You don't lose any choice because CE is next to a monster stat name. Come on, that's silly. It's a baseline broad tool to start with, not a dictate.

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?

And if alignment is just a "baseline broad tool," what does it provide that all that description on each monster's page in the MM doesn't provide?

More importantly, what does an alignment bring to the game, if it's just two characters, that a more in-depth and nuanced approach doesn't bring?

It's no more or less a restriction than any other stat. If it says the monster wields a scimitar, is that a role playing restriction which forces the DM to assume they are skilled with that type of sword, or are they allowed to swap it for something else as they see fit? It's of course the later. You use the scimitar as a baseline and work from there, like any other stat. Same with alignment.

Equipment is quite a bit different than a rule on what an entire race's moral and ethical outlook is.

Also, everyone can agree on what a scimitar does, because it's there in the books. Considering there have been decades of arguments on alignment, there isn't a lot people can agree on as to what each alignment means.

 

[Mistwell]

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).

OK. Where would you like me to tell it to them? I've used good aligned orcs in every edition of D&D sometimes with no trouble. What was it that caused you trouble when you tried it with a prior edition?

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.

I am not going to argue on behalf of ImagineGod. I think that's a silly argument. I don't buy that the alignment listing for NPCs resulted in obedience to that alignment, or that removing it causes DMs to just flap in the wind like an untied flag completely unable to determine how to play an NPC. All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that. Removing it removes a tool I and others sometimes found useful, but all it ever represented was a baseline tool and not something set in stone.

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?

Yes I would have. Of course I would have, and I think most DMs who gain experience do that. IF I had the time to prepare. What I've been saying (and which I feel you've been ignoring) is that alignment as a tool comes up most often, at least in my games, when on the fly the PCs do something which involves an NPC that I didn't anticipate would happen. And so on the fly I have to determine how that NPC will behave without pausing the game, and alignment could be a useful tool to do that. It also MIGHT have something to do with the plot later on that the writers anticipated and so it sure is helpful to know what they had in mind for this NPC in the moment. Of course I can change it. And of course it can be useful to have it. It's the later you don't seem to want to address.

And if alignment is just a "baseline broad tool," what does it provide that all that description on each monster's page in the MM doesn't provide?

Who is reading all that description on each monster's page in the MM in the moment it comes up in a game? Not me! If rando gnoll NPC comes up in a game where I didn't expect it would need to, I am not opening the MM to read all about gnolls. I am glancing in the moment quickly at a stat line and coming up with something on the fly, and the alignment will be part of the tools used to do that. As will intelligence, wisdom, charisma, equipment, and possibly their physical stats as well. Do most gnolls have a reputation for being chaotic evil? If yes, then either I am making this gnoll chaotic evil too OR I am quickly coming up with some reason why they break from that reputation, all influenced by the context of the encounter and setting we're playing in. But alignment first and foremost is an efficient tool which communicates something about an NPC which the DM can use or decide to not use.

More importantly, what does an alignment bring to the game, if it's just two characters, that a more in-depth and nuanced approach doesn't bring?

Expediency in the moment. Much like we could be running D&D with wound systems and luck systems and faith systems and speed and other factors each independently calculating a total for that system for each creature, OR we could for expediency sake use the shorthand known as Hit Points to represent all those things and more. Same goes for Armor Class, for example. It's just a stat like any other stat: it represents a larger array of elements, and has flexibility behind it to focus on one of those larger elements when the need arises, but it can be used as a summary also when expediency is called for.

Equipment is quite a bit different than a rule on what an entire race's moral and ethical outlook is.

It's not an entire races moral and ethical outlook however. It's not represented as such in the MM either. Directly from the MM, "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you." This, by the way, is fairly similar to how the MM describes monster equipment entries as well.

It's a baseline for typical encounters. Exactly like equipment. You can vary equipment, but if you need to know on the fly what a typical gnoll you might encounter in this game might carry, it's a spear and a longbow. Which is why their entry includes a spear and longbow entry. Much like you can vary their alignment, but if you need to know on the fly what a typical gnoll you might encounter in the game might have for an alignment it's chaotic evil, which is why their entry includes it.

Also, everyone can agree on what a scimitar does, because it's there in the books. Considering there have been decades of arguments on alignment, there isn't a lot people can agree on as to what each alignment means.

There have been decades of arguments on scimitars too. Like WHY OH WHY CAN DRUIDS USE A METAL SCIMITAR? Page and pages of debate on that question alone. More debates on why even have a scimitar when it's just a curved sword and we could just use a longsword and describe it that way. Even more debates on how long a scimitar might be, and the difference between a scimitar and a tulwar, kilij, pulwar, shamshir, szabla, shotel, and kirpaan. And can a scimitar be a piercing weapon or must it be a slashing weapon even though some historically used it both ways? And why is a cutlass not considered a scimitar?

It's a rules focused forum. If you think there have not been decades of arguments on pretty much anything in the game which has existed in most or all of the editions, you're mistaken. Alignment is no different.

 

[Faolyn]

OK. Where would you like me to tell it to them? I've used good aligned orcs in every edition of D&D sometimes with no trouble. What was it that caused you trouble when you tried it with a prior edition?

I have had a lot of discussions with people who insist that you can't have good-aligned orcs beyond the occasional exception because they're an evil race.

I've always pretty much ignored alignment. That's one reason I'm glad it's gone. It was just a useless bit of info that caused problems.

I am not going to argue on behalf of ImagineGod. I think that's a silly argument. I don't buy that the alignment listing for NPCs resulted in obedience to that alignment, or that removing it causes DMs to just flap in the wind like an untied flag completely unable to determine how to play an NPC. All I am arguing, and the only position I intend to defend, is that alignment can be useful sometimes for DMs who, by necessity in the moment, need to make a judgement on the fly based on a glance and the alignment section could be helpful for that. Removing it removes a tool I and others sometimes found useful, but all it ever represented was a baseline tool and not something set in stone.

So... what you're saying here is that (A) character background, personality traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, that sort of thing, monster descriptions, your purpose for the creature in your adventure... completely useless for determining how an NPC acts; (B) either DMs in general or you in particular can't make up character motivations on the fly unless the character has an alignment to tell you; (C) all people of a particular alignment act the same way and have the same motivations; and (D) no DM can ever say "guys, give me a moment here while I figure out how this NPC is going to react.

Uh-huh.

The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil shopkeeper and ask to buy something. Quick! How does that shopkeeper react? Because "attack the PCs," "sell the PCs things that look useful but will explode (literally or metaphorically) later on," and "act totally normal, like any other shopkeeper, and then after work they go off and drown puppies and stalk that one bartender they lust after," are all Chaotic Evil things.

Or more seriously: The PCs meet a Chaotic Evil minion of a bad guy. How does the minion react? Because "attack the PCs," "Ally with the PCs to help overthrow its master, since it has no real loyalty to the master," "threaten the PCs with its master's wrath until they give it money," and "run away, since it has no real loyalty to its master, and therefore doesn't feel the need to risk its life on behalf of its master," are also Chaotic Evil things.

How does having that Chaotic Evil alignment help you figure out the NPC's motivation where there are countless motivations inside every single alignment?

Yes I would have. Of course I would have, and I think most DMs who gain experience do that. IF I had the time to prepare. What I've been saying (and which I feel you've been ignoring) is that alignment as a tool comes up most often, at least in my games, when on the fly the PCs do something which involves an NPC that I didn't anticipate would happen.

That's when you just run with what the PCs are doing and decide the NPC's "alignment" later.

And so on the fly I have to determine how that NPC will behave without pausing the game, and alignment could be a useful tool to do that. It also MIGHT have something to do with the plot later on that the writers anticipated and so it sure is helpful to know what they had in mind for this NPC in the moment. Of course I can change it. And of course it can be useful to have it. It's the later you don't seem to want to address.

Wait... you run prewritten adventures without reading them first? That's just... weird. I mean, I can see reading them and not taking notes or making changes before running the adventure, but not reading them at all?

Guys, is this a thing DMs do? Even the most improv-based DM at my table does a ton a prep work before he runs. And I know that I read the adventure multiple times before I run and make tons of adjustments. And we generally all know our favorite settings inside and out. Are we a weird table?

Who is reading all that description on each monster's page in the MM in the moment it comes up in a game? Not me!

And you run games without reading the material first? Or at least having a strong idea of what's in it? Whaaat?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but this is weird. I've read the MMs and my setting books multiple times, and I have my own opinions on what things are "really like" in my setting. While I certainly haven't memorized them, I know enough to say that if I decide that the PCs run into something, such as a particular type of creature, I have an idea of how that type of creature works in my game. And if it turns out my memory of that creature is off, then either that particular creature is different somehow, is hiding something, or I just change how that creature type functions in my game.

Expediency in the moment. Much like we could be running D&D with wound systems and luck systems and faith systems and speed and other factors each independently calculating a total for that system for each creature, OR we could for expediency sake use the shorthand known as Hit Points to represent all those things and more. Same goes for Armor Class, for example. It's just a stat like any other stat: it represents a larger array of elements, and has flexibility behind it to focus on one of those larger elements when the need arises, but it can be used as a summary also when expediency is called for.

Hit Points = numbers.
AC = numbers.
Alignment =/= numbers.

It's not an entire races moral and ethical outlook however. It's not represented as such in the MM either. Directly from the MM, "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you." This, by the way, is fairly similar to how the MM describes monster equipment entries as well.

Well, in that case, having an alignment is incredibly pointless. It doesn't describe morals and ethics on a species level and can be changed on a whim. There's no hard-coded definition to it in the same way there's a hard-coded definition to how a particular weapon or suit of armor works. And nobody can agree as to what any particular alignment means.

Thanks. You just proved that there's no reason to include alignment.

There have been decades of arguments on scimitars too. Like WHY OH WHY CAN DRUIDS USE A METAL SCIMITAR?

Because Gygax said it was a sword that kinda looked like a sickle.

It's a rules focused forum. If you think there have not been decades of arguments on pretty much anything in the game which has existed in most or all of the editions, you're mistaken. Alignment is no different.

Then what are the rules for alignment?

Edit: In case I wasn't clear: There are rules for AC, to figure out what hits it. There are rules for weapons, to figure out what damage it inflicts when it hits. And there are rules for hit points, to figure out how much damage a creature can take. If alignment is no different than those things, then what are the actual rules for it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Fortunately the books, for every edition, have gone into some depth on what they mean with a broad range of examples. And they don't have to be exact or inflexible, it's just a rough guideline to start from. If you don't like it, it's easy to not use it. But some people really do like it, and like all additional content the answer of "If you don't like it then just don't use it" should apply just as well to you as it applied when you said it to others about content they didn't like which was added to the game.

Let's set aside the argument that players who started in 5th edition should purchase books from previous editions for the purposes of understanding alignment and applying a broad range of examples.

The fact is, alignment has never been consistent across editions. In 2nd edition, the rulebooks suggested that a True Neutral character could potentially switch sides in the middle of a conflict to preserve the balance between good and evil, and could be completely indifferent to raising their party members. Chaotic neutral was described as lolrandom! and also likely to switch sides for no reason.

Then came 3rd edition, with bards and barbarians that couldn't be lawful and monks that couldn't be chaotic.

Of course, alignment grognards always skip over 4th edition, which simplified the alignments down to Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil.