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+​

 

[Charlaquin]

is it even possible for a Killer to be both Relentless and CE?
Being Relentless suggests an absolute obsessions with killing the targets, whereas a chaotic Killer would be "Im gonna kill those meddling kids because I want to but I wont kill them because - ooh butterflies..."

PS anyone remember what this thread was originally about? I've forgotten

I mean, this is super emblematic of (one of the many) problems with alignment though. Does Chaotic mean a creature acts at random or on the smallest of whims? Does it mean a creature is allied with the cosmic forces of chaos? and if so, allied in what way? Militarily? Philosophically? Metaphysically? Does it mean a creature acts without regard to law? Or that it actively seeks to disobay or dismantle laws? Who’s laws? Can a chaotic creature behave in a way that is consistent with any set of rules, or does doing so cause its alignment to change to Neutral or Chaotic?

You can ask these sorts of questions about any alignment, and every player will answer them differently. It’s like the system was tailor-made for the specific purpose of causing arguments at the game table, and later, on the internet.

 

[Mistwell]

No, sorry. You are claiming that alignment has specific uses. It's up to you to now explain those uses.

Not really, no. I don't know where you think that obligation comes from, but it doesn't exist.

If I tell you I find X useful, no polite response include, "No you don't."

I can certainly try harder to explain to you why I find it useful. That's something I am up for doing. But only if we can get to the point where you accept I do genuinely find it useful.

I find it very interesting that that would have been the fourth time I asked you to explain what use alignment actually has, how it's "useful" to you, and you have refused every time. Instead, each time you immediately threw it back on me, claiming I must be calling you a liar. I have to wonder if this is some sort of projection on your part. I mean, it would be really simple for you to actually provide some examples, and yet you refuse each and every time. Why is that?

If you're not calling me a liar, then what are you saying when you tell me I can't have found it useful?

I have not refused to explain why I find it useful, you just don't like the answer I gave and want to talk more about it (like for example post 248). But why the heck would I want to have a conversation with someone who, when I say "I like X" you respond, "You don't like X!" Would YOU want to have that conversation?

If I post a poll, and in that poll I ask people "Have you found alignment useful in any way?" and some meaningful percentage of people answer "Yes, I've found it useful in some way" what are you going to say to them? No, they have not?

I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think Van Richten’s Guide was absolutely designed to appeal to both old school fans and new school ones, and I have heard from old school fans and new school fans who enjoy it. I’ve also heard from folks who don’t, just as I heard from folks who didn’t enjoy 5e. No product is going to please everyone, this time you just happen to be among the folks this one doesn’t please.

I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I would argue this largely depends on the alignment system you are using. The old system of Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral were pretty easy to understand (particularly in light of the source material that inspired it). I think it did get more complicated in AD&D. It still wasnt' that difficult though. The real problem was people disagreed on the meanings of the alignment combinations and they changed them a lot over time. Also things like true neutral were odd for a lot of people. Personally I think in a setting where alignment is reflecting cosmic forces, it makes sense. However, like I said before it has serious flaws. If you examine it, it does start to fray. I think the best approach honestly is to have mechanics for alignment that reflect how it gets used: which is some use it, and some effectively ignore it----so make it a switch you can flick on and off but be clear what turning it off can impact (as there are rules in the game tied to alignment)

The original system is probably the most coherent. But the most widely known is probably the system from 2nd edition. Which, as you have said yourself, is flawed. Ultimately, these flaws haven't been fixed, and that is why I suspect WotC is slowly moving away from the system.

It's funny, because while I don't like alignment as it stands, I have said in this thread it could possibly be made better and more useful. My recent arguments have been that trying to equate it as a fundamental part of the game as hit points does a disservice to the argument that alignment should be a part of the game.

 

[Faolyn]

I am not seeing how a listing of alignment causes polarization, when all you need to do is ignore it like everyone who opposes it has said they've been doing for years? How does it make your game more difficult?

People, including myself, have posted how multiple times in this thread.

In short: If WotC is saying that all orcs (or whatever) are evil, then it doesn't matter if some tables choose to ignore that ore not: it means that WotC is basically supporting fantastic racism. In many cases, this fantastic racism mirrors real world racism, such as in the description in Volo's of how orcs can be "domesticated" if raced away from other orcs, but are never truly peaceful. This isn't the type of statement that WotC wants to make.

(And no, having always good races isn't better. Mostly because--as we've said many times--there has never been any consensus as to what alignments actually mean. This has led to elves being Chaotic Good and dwarfs being Lawful Good, while both having "kill on sight" edicts about certain humanoids (even being baked into their PC race info for dwarfs getting a bonus to hit certain creatures, in earlier editions), or being depicted as having racist or imperialistic views against other good races.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, take D&D out of this for a second. If I asked you if you like avocados, and you say yes, how would you react if I told you, "No you don't. Nobody likes avocados?"

Avocados are bad design! Prove me wrong!

 

[Charlaquin]

I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.

I could be wrong. When I read it it I will have a better idea. But I do think it is different in that many old school fans I know who were excited about 5E seem less interested in this release due to it seeming to take a negative posture towards much of the old material. The messaging is coming across that way to me as an old fan as well. Now that 1) doesn’t mean it is bad—something can be designed not to appeal to older fans and still be good and 2) the messaging and the actual content might not be in alignment (maybe the previews, statements and reviews are not an accurate reflection if the book). I am just not getting the same ‘we want you all’ here vibe I got leading up to the release of 5E itself.

I definitely don’t get the impression that it it slighting old-school fans, or saying that anyone who liked it the way it was is wrong for doing so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The original system is probably the most coherent. But the most widely known is probably the system from 2nd edition. Which, as you have said yourself, is flawed. Ultimately, these flaws haven't been fixed, and that is why I suspect WotC is slowly moving away from the system.

It's funny, because while I don't like alignment as it stands, I have said in this thread it could possibly be made better and more useful. My recent arguments have been that trying to equate it as a fundamental part of the game as hit points does a disservice to the argument that alignment should be a part of the game.

I honestly can go either way on alignment. Not perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to D&D specifically. But I think the very strong reaction to its removal is a sign that it might be more fundamental to D&D (just as HP are) to more people than folks may have realized.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I definitely don’t get the impression that it it slighting old-school fans, or saying that anyone who liked it the way it was is wrong for doing so.

We just have a different impression. But I don’t want to derail another thread over it. I am just not getting the same tone or message as you on this front

 

[Mistwell]

People, including myself, have posted how multiple times in this thread.

In short: If WotC is saying that all orcs (or whatever) are evil,

They don't though. I posted the MM language about alignment. It's never been listed as an "all". Plus I am not even talking about monster books, the context here is a stat block in an adventure right? They can change any stat block to reflect that NPCs alignment. You can have a good aligned orc and an evil aligned orc in the same adventure. We're talking about the utility of alignments being listed in a simple form statblock. Much like if one orc is a "relentless killer" and another or is a "compassionate healer" in the same adventure. You can't pretend there is some inherent flaw in alignment because it spans an entire race (which it never did in this edition anyway) but then later claim a common descriptor doesn't do the same thing to that race.