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+​

 

[imagineGod]

Basically, one of the biggest contradictions I see in modern writers for D&D products I that they first state that there is "no bad wrong fun by consensus" which basically gives a greenlight to a table to play anything by consensus. They even go so far as to say if a rule in the book ruins your fun, then change it or just ignore it.

This encourages each games table to be subjective by default . Hence, if one table plays in a totally bigoted way from the perspective of another table, neither is having bad wrong fun if neither table comes into contact with the other. Universally definitions of bigotry cannot exist in such islands of subjectivity.

And interestingly mirrors the Islands of Dread of Ravenloft separated by the mists. Each is its own thing,, a perfectly valid domain.

 

[MGibster]

And Dungeons and Dragons is designed around each individual table with the Dungeon Master final arbiter. And no two DMs are the sane nor do they pass a universal degree course in Dungeon Mastering, hence, even more subjectivity driven by the makeup of each different table.

You're certainly correct about no DM being sane.

 

[Faolyn]

I think the "everything has to be 100% fun all the time" and "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry is bad" is a very 2010 attitude, and one that is a bit unhelpful and shortsighted.

But this isn't about "admitting the existence of any kind of bigotry." This is about actually using bigoted tropes against your players. This is about things like having NPCs actively discriminating against or trying to harm your PC because you decided to play "the wrong type of character."

Yes, of course, you can have bigots in a game, but a lot of the times it was, as you say, pointless bigotry. It wasn't something that allowed the players to explore the issue, or to find interesting ways to get around it or hide from it. It didn't add anything to the game.

 

[Stormonu]

Perhaps it can be done as consensual bigotry - the character accepts a penalty to reactions in return for some advantage in another way. This wouldn't be something the DM simply imposes, but instead a pact where the player chooses to accept the stigma in return for other advantages.

Example: The player of the Caliban agrees that in this region, his character is shunned for his appearance. In return, he gains a +1d4 bonus to Stealth checks as the character becomes more adept at avoiding the locals. When the character moves on to the next town, the player decides they're tired of the penalty for a while and informs the DM they wish to negate the stigma for the next few adventures. Later, after some events or moving to a new region, the player may want to choose to initiate the ability again. This time, the character decides to gain a +1d4 bonus to Wisdom saves, his mind stiffened from the insults and ill treatment suffered by the locals.

 

[MGibster]

When I worked at a museum, we had a theater upstairs we'd show to kids as part of the tour that was a little mini-biography of the man born in the building. Sometimes we'd get really little kids taking tours and that movie was no good for them so we used to show them old Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons from WWII. Propaganda cartoons. If any of you are familiar with some of those cartoons you know where this story is headed.

I was the guy who talked to the kids about Civil War medicine and showed off our amputation kit and our jeep (kids love Jeeps), but one day I had to sit through the cartoons with a group of children. They were funny but the racism and xenophobia was completely inappropriate for the audience that day. Thankfully most of the jokes went over the heads of the young children but on more than one occasion I swear a teacher about came out of her skin. And she was right to have that reaction. Later that afternoon I spoke with the director telling him I thought the cartoons were inappropriate for younger children and only appropriate in the context of teaching visitors about wartime propaganda. Some of you who have seen me post here might be surprised that I was the one who complained about inappropriate content.

To his dying day, Mickey Rooney couldn't understand why younger people had such a hard time with his offensive portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. But let's face facts, standards for what is or isn't socially acceptable changes from decade to decade. I must admit that sometimes I'm like Mickey Rooney in that I find what younger people complain about to be silly. However, I sometimes recognize that they're absolutely right. I sure can't watch Revenge of the Nerds these days without thinking how creepy the nerds were. But regardless of how I might personally feel, I usually have no problem accepting the changes.

While I haven't read the VRGR yet, I haven't been particularly upset about any of the changes I've heard about. I'm not sure if I'll buy it but I probably will. Even if I knew I wasn't going to purchase it, I'd be happy the game existed for a younger generation of players to enjoy.

 

[Electryc]

Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials. Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry. Who derailed this train?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials. Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry. Who derailed this train?

I think it started in this post.

 

[Prakriti]

They're embracing the truth that fun cannot be wrong unless it hurts someone else

Sure, but your definition of "hurts someone else" includes "a group of consenting adults getting together to play a game they all enjoy."

You're essentially using the same argument that the Christian fundamentalists used in the 80s, which is that playing a game with distasteful elements in it will corrupt people's morals. You and the fundamentalists disagree on what those distasteful elements are, but you both resort to the same tactic of shaming and scolding people for engaging in a fun, consensual activity together.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sure, but your definition of "hurts someone else" includes "a group of consenting adults getting together to play a game they all enjoy."

You're essentially using the same argument that the Christian fundamentalists used in the 80s, which is that playing a game with distasteful elements in it will corrupt people's morals. You and the fundamentalists disagree on what those distasteful elements are, but you both resort to the same tactic of shaming and scolding people for engaging in a fun, consensual activity together.

False equivalency.

If the thing that can corrupt them are the inclusion of demons in a TTRPG where most parties will be killing those demons, that's BS, especially because, get this, demons aren't real in the real world (I'm not going into the religious part of this, I'm just saying that demons aren't a real danger in the real world, so that concern is invalid). However, racism, sexism, and ableism are real, and the perpetuation of tropes that harm those people can be harmful, even if it isn't directly/immediately harmful to the people having fun at the table. You're using the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy. That's not a valid support for your argument, because, primarily, I'm not advocating for the destruction of D&D like those Christian Fundamentalists in the Satanic Panic were, I'm advocating for the removal of harmful and offensive terms that are actually harmful and offensive.

 

[Remathilis]

Wow came on here to see if this book's worth buying from customer testimonials. Instead I'm reading mostly about debates about bigotry. Who derailed this train?

Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal).

Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.

 

[Prakriti]

False equivalency.

If the thing that can corrupt them are the inclusion of demons in a TTRPG where most parties will be killing those demons, that's BS, especially because, get this, demons aren't real in the real world (I'm not going into the religious part of this, I'm just saying that demons aren't a real danger in the real world, so that concern is invalid). However, racism, sexism, and ableism are real, and the perpetuation of tropes that harm those people can be harmful, even if it isn't directly/immediately harmful to the people having fun at the table. You're using the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy. That's not a valid support for your argument, because, primarily, I'm not advocating for the destruction of D&D like those Christian Fundamentalists in the Satanic Panic were, I'm advocating for the removal of harmful and offensive terms that are actually harmful and offensive.

You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic.

So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic.

So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.

I'm an atheist, btw, so I'm not worried about your soul.

I'm not scolding anyone, drop the ad hominems and strawmen, please. I'm saying that including offensive content can be harmful, even if no one directly at the table sees a problem with it. Like I said above, no one in a group of racist white people would see anything wrong with using the n-word or blackface. Does that make it okay to use those things if no one there is being offended? Of course it doesn't!!! How is this even in question? Racist/Sexist/Ableist content is harmful whether or not it obviously hurts someone that sees it.

How the media (including D&D) depicts something affects how people think of and respond to that thing. That's a fact. If D&D/other media depicts racism as a fact of life that people just have to get over, that can be harmful. If it depicts one gender/sex inherently lesser than the other, than can be harmful. If it depicts people with disabilities as monsters/dangerous/evil, that can be harmful.

Got it? Do I need to prove my innocence about not being a Christian Fundamentalist D&D-book-burner any further? (You know, besides the fact that I wasn't even born yet when that was happening.)

 

[Cadence]

And the 5th Edition game as a whole is just as circular. Those of us from the Golden Days of the game are going to gripe at many of the unnecessary and blatantly terrible changes while the newbs and casuals to the game (of which is the only business the company cares about, they don't care about the rest of us from the 70s-early 2000s) will give these products amazingly grand reviews and find it such a great addition to the game with the pure ignorance of what it was before, and if you educate these same people, then they'll come to realization of how utterly watered down the game truly is.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but I'm 47 and have been playing since '86. I've played BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, and D&D 3.5. I've played/DMed in Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and countless homebrew settings. I have/had setting material for all of these, plus Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Kara-Tur, and the Known World/Mystara. You do not speak for me. I think 5e is the best version of D&D yet (it has its flaws, but I'd still rather play and DM it than any other edition). I also think the new Ravenloft book is in many way superior to the 2e boxed sets. You do not speak for me.

50 and been playing since '81 and have played B/X, 1e, 2e, 3.5, 4, 5, PF 1e, and 13th age, and DM'ed most of those. When I first read 5e it seemed... ok, but I thought I still clearly liked PF/3.5 as the best edition followed by 2e. Having played and DMed more, if I were to cobble together my own "best of" rules it would sure have a lot of 5e things in with the PF.

 

[Malmuria]

You're still scolding people for playing a game where all the participants are consenting adults. Throw in a few "immortal souls" and "eternal damnations" and your argument could easily have come out of the mouth of a Christian preacher during the Satanic Panic.

So while I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, I must inform you that my friends and I are going to keep playing our game the way we want to. Sorry if that offends you.

Are you running a Ravenloft game? What specific elements of your game would be affected by the guidelines in the new book?

 

[Minigiant]

Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.

I completely disagree with that. Two words: The Bagman.

 

[Minigiant]

I completely disagree with that. Two words: The Bagman.

Meh.
The monster they sampled from for it is too weak to invoke isn't that scary. Especially how it usually will be used (solo).

 

[Kurotowa]

Just watched the video review of VRGR by DungeonCraft and he says the book doesn't go far enough to escape heroic fantasy and doesn't itself give the tools to really invoke fear in the players.

That's always been the tension of Ravenloft, hasn't it? Is Ravenloft still fundamentally a D&D game or is it trying to be a dedicated horror RPG. Some versions have tried very hard to escape being D&D and rewrite the rules towards that end. This book leans more towards still being D&D, with everything that goes with that.

That's not a quality issue, it's a design choice. One that won't satisfy everyone, because no choice ever does, but personally I think it's the right one. If I want to play a dedicated horror RPG, rather than a heroic fantasy hero in a horror setting, I'd break out CoC or WoD.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Let us set aside the fact that some 10% or so of players are not, in fact, adults.

WotC, and more importantly for the moment, EN World, have recognized that silently allowing intolerance to stand results in normalizing, and thus perpetuating, intolerance. Nobody can stop you from engaging in it at your table, but neither is there call for them to support such.

Your repeated assertions that there is something wrong with standing up against intolerance is problematic, and if it has not already, it is very apt to make people uncomfortable. So, you've reached the limit of what we'll allow in this discussion. Please find a discussion that doesn't run you up against our site's inclusivity policy.

 

[JEB]

Most of the Ravenloft discussions here (and in other internet forums) end up mired in the "they destroyed the old setting because WotC is trying to appease the woke crowd" rhetoric. It's a continuation of the comments made about Tasha's (racial changes) and Candlekeep (alignment removal).

Basically, the people trying to discuss the content of said books are drowned out by the people who want to complain about WotC's moves towards inclusivity. I suspect this will be the case for all books coming in 2021 and possibly beyond.

While I have seen the occasional comment online deploring how "woke" the recent changes are (such as references to "Wokenloft"), the majority of the comments I've seen (particularly on ENWorld) on the changes to character races, the removal of alignment, and the changes to Ravenloft are not objecting to it on "wokeness" grounds or a desire to keep the game from being inclusive. Mostly it seems to come from folks who thought the old things had value, and don't think they had to be changed or swept aside so completely to appeal to modern audiences.

I do agree, however, that if Wizards continues making changes that feel alienating to some veteran gamers, you will continue to see complaints. Not about the game becoming more inclusive for new players... but because those older gamers feel the game is no longer inclusive for them.

The funny thing is, the idea that the game either has to change very little, or change significantly, to keep some elusive majority of players isn't how things operated for six years of 5E - Wizards did a pretty good job of making a game that appealed equally well to the majority of old and new players, and struck a balance between inclusive changes and respecting the game's roots. So this new strategy doesn't seem necessary. But I guess we'll see how it works out, especially when they try the Ravenloft treatment on their next classic setting...