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]

I think its moreso they don't do enough on their own to justify all of the other problems with alignment.

If alignment was just "Two letters on a stat block", then we wouldn't had the past nearly 3 decades of arguments about it. But its a lot more than that, and that's where the problem lies.

If it's "all the other problems" then again I'd ask what harm is it doing to your game that others see alignment there, but you decide to not use it?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm saying alignment useless because it doesn't perform the job you claim it does.

But it does, for me. I've told you I've found it does perform that job at my table. Other have mentioned they also find it useful in that same way. Either everyone is lying to you, or you simply have a difference in tastes. So which is it?

Or are you going to say I'm a jerk and not answer me again?

If you cannot accept that some people do find alignment to be useful in the way I have described it, then it seems the shoe fits. It's kind of a basic tenant of polite conversation that when someone says, "I like X, for Y reasons" the response not be "no you don't."

Considering that WotC has decided to get rid of alignment

They have not gotten rid of alignment though. They just didn't include it in two books. It's still there in the core books. Which seems to irritate you?

 

[imagineGod]

I feel the fact that other RPGs that don't use alignment as a categorization schema for their NPCs by and large don't seem to have the problems alignment's proponents are claiming in this thread speaks for itself.

The fact many other RPGs do not have the problems we see with 1 HP enemies in D&D and why unless you kill it dead, a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 10 HP or even 20 HP on its turn of action.

Yet, the virulent hatred for alignment by some herd in stir blocks is absent for Hit Points failure in D&D design, speaks volumes of hypocrisy.

Basically, having alignment on monsters does not force every table to use them. It just a tool to help the DM instead of reading motivations of every random monster thrown out in a random encounter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The fact many other RPGs do not have the problems we see with 1 HP enemies in D&D and why unless you kill it dead, a 1 HP enemy is as deadly as a 10 HP or even 20 HP on its turn of action.

That's not a problem. D&D is a game, not a simulation.

Killing someone because they have the wrong hat is.

 

[imagineGod]

That's not a problem. D&D is a game, not a simulation.

Killing someone because they have the wrong hat is.

I think you missed the part where D&D is just a game like you said. So if you can play 1 HP being as competent as full HP, then all death is just Hit Point loss.

The alignments like hit points are just tools to help Dungeon Masters run the monsters. Thet are not simulations of real life nor death.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you missed the part where D&D is just a game like you said. So if you can play 1 HP being as competent as full HP, then all death is just Hit Point loss.

The alignments like hit points are just tools to help Dungeon Masters run the monsters. Thet are not simulations of real life nor death.

There is a difference between an unrealistic portrayal of mortality, and an unrealistic portrayal of morality.

 

[imagineGod]

There is a difference between an unrealistic portrayal of mortality, and an unrealistic portrayal of morality.

Not in a tabletop game that is unrealistic by its very nature. No real person nor real creature lives or dies on the table top (not talking of microbes).

Trying to say morality is more or even less realistic than hit points is a strawman argument.

Both alignment and hit points are tools in a monster star block to run encounters in a game played on tabletop or tablet computer.

Neither are there to simulate real life.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not in a tabletop game that is unrealistic by its very nature. Nobody loves on the table top.

You can draw lessons from play. That's the whole reason animals (including humans) play. Those lessens can be helpful, harmful, or neutral.

Trying to say morality is more or even less realistic than hit points is a strawman argument.

It's a good job that wasn't the argumant I was making then, isn't it?

It's not a matter of being more or less realistic, it's a matter of how much harm to others is done when someone learns the wrong lesson from the game. If you learn the wrong lesson about the effect of injury, the only person you harm is yourself. If you learn that it's okay to kill someone because they have a different belief system, that is doing immense harm.

Both alignment and hit points are tools in a monster star block to run encounters in a game played on tabletop or tablet computer.

Neither are there to simulate real life.

I'm a teacher. I use simulations all the time in order to teach people about real life.

 

[imagineGod]

You can draw lessons from play. That's the whole reason animals (including humans) play. Those lessens can be helpful, harmful, or neutral.

It's a good job that wasn't the argumant I was making then, isn't it?

It's not a matter of being more or less realistic, it's a matter of how much harm to others is done when someone learns the wrong lesson from the game. If you learn the wrong lesson about the effect of injury, the only person you harm is yourself. If you learn that it's okay to kill someone because they have a different belief system, that is doing immense harm.

I'm a teacher. I use simulations all the time in order to teach people about real life.

It is a good thing we no longer live in the Satanic Panic of the 1980s.

Several peer reviewed research papers could not find direct links between violent photorealistic video games and violence in people. Nor was that relationship found in movies.

So a tabletop game with plastic miniatures or theater of the mind narratives cannot harm anybody in real life

Hence, stat blocks with hit points and alignments have even less prone to brainwashing people than video games with photorealistic violence.

We are all so lucky we live in a world where tabletop games have not opened a portal wherecthe fantasy game took over our real world, are we not?

 

[imagineGod]

By the way I lived my youth in countries where hardly anyone played D&D on the tabletop and yet real children got limbs amputed through real war violence. My friend, a journalist, escaped a real civil war by riding a motorbike through the bushes across the border. None of those places where bastions of tabletop D&D play.