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]

I dunno, ImagineGod. When is D&D no longer D&D? Is it alignment? Did it happen when THAC0 was dropped? Maybe it was when we abandoned gender maximums, Race as Class, or, I know, when we went past having more classes than Fighting Man and Magic User?

If you want to argue the usefulness of alignment, convince me why it is useful, not that it's some sort of iconic element of D&D that has to be there because it always been there.

Because Alignment with its single (E = Evil) or two letter (LG = Lawful Good) shorthand is much easier to peruse quikcly in a stat block and still offer the DM ideas into how to play a monster. Other, games tried other approaches, not any better in play, frankly, I play Cypher too.

By dropping alignment in Van Richeten's Guide to Ravenloft, the text then spends multiple sentences trying to explain that "Relentless Killer" monster in the appendix, when just one letter "e" would have told the DM it was an evil monster.

So if WoTC was honest, instead of dropping alignment, present the better alternative (they have none).

Remember, THAC0 was the shorthand for the tables of to hit you needed in AD&D 1st Edition. Then in 3rd Edition, ascending Armor Class, was a shorter option than THAC0 of AD&D 2nd Edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

For example here is that supposedly revolutionary character concept:
A brash (the adjective) explorer (the noun) who abides in stone (the verb).

From a Cypher System rules generator. What the hell does that even mean? And here you thought alignment was so bad in D&D it needed axing.

I mean... That tells me significantly more about the character than “Chaotic Good” does.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

This sacred cow is afflicted with a significantly bad case of parasitic brainworms.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Because Alignment with its single (E = Evil) or two letter (LG = Lawful Good) shorthand is much easier to peruse quikcly in a stat block and still offer the DM ideas into how to play a monster. Other, games tried other approaches, not any better in play, frankly, I play Cypher too.

By dropping alignment in Van Richeten's Guide to Ravenloft, the text then spends multiple sentences trying to explain that "Relentless Killer" monster in the appendix, when just one letter "e" would have told the DM it was an evil monster.

So if WoTC was honest, instead of dropping alignment, present the better alternative (they have none).

Remember, THAC0 was the shorthand for the tables of to hit you needed in AD&D 1st Edition. Then in 3rd Edition, ascending Armor Class, was a shorter option than THAC0 of AD&D 2nd Edition.

I know you replied to two of my posts, but I think this is the better laid out argument between the two, so I actually wanted to address it. I think the argument that a shorthand, or jargon, on how to play a NPC or monster could be useful, so that argument for alignment is compelling.

That said, jargon is most useful when the people who use it are all on the same page. I would guess that for most of the people who find alignment useful, the group they play with probably generally agree on how to interpret alignment. The problem comes in only if a group is not on the same page on what the shorthand means.

Which is why I think it's not particularly helpful. If the Relentless Killer is lawful, what does that mean, and more importantly, are we all on the same page with what it means? No shorthand, or even detailed explanation is going to be perfectly interpreted the same by everyone, but alignment seems to be quite varied, probably not helped by different explanations throughout D&D's history.

I'm starting to ramble though. I think unless WotC wants to focus heavily on alignment and defining it, it's not terribly useful. The counter argument is that removing it doesn't add anything. Which is I suppose true. I'd argue that removing it makes the DM and players actually think about why the character or monster is doing what it is doing rather than falling back on the shorthand. I'll admit that is just an opinion on my part though.

 

[imagineGod]

I mean... That tells me significantly more about the character than “Chaotic Good” does.

One could argue that it restricts your imagination into playing the character only that way. Sort of like what you argued alignments do.

Or else, your argument against alignments are invalid, since we all know alignments are just great single letter or two letter shorthand to inspire the DM to build upon that the same way you are building upon the Cypher solution.

It seems the hatred for alignments by the anti-alignment crowd simply boils down to hating single or two letter shorthand, but happily accepting other short hand. Kind of hypocritical that!

 

[imagineGod]

Shorthand in the original i6 Ravenloft module for AD&D (by Tracy and Laura Hickman):

Random Encounter Table: Encounter:
1-4 villagers ; AC 9, MOV 12", HD 2; #AT 1: Dmg 1-6, AL: NG.

3-12 (3d4) ghouls; AC 6; MOV 9", #AT 3: Dmg 1-3/1-3/1-6; AL: CE

Yet, it seems some people who hate shorthand rather have it removed for everyone else who finds it useful.

I mean, is it not easier and more respectful to fellow DMs to just skip over the "AL: NG" in the above, if it is not personally useful to you, rather than demand no other DM has the right to benefit from that shorthand?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Shorthand in the original i6 Ravenloft module for AD&D (by Tracy and Laura Hickman):

Random Encounter Table: Encounter:
1-4 villagers , AC9, MOV 12", HD2, #AT 1: Dmg 1-6, AL: NG.

See that above: shorthand.

Yet, it seems some people who hate shorthand rather have it removed for everyone else who finds it useful.

I mean, is it not easier and more respectful to fellow DMs to just skip over the "AL: NG" in the above, if it is not personally useful to you, rather than demand no other DM has the right to benefit from that shorthand?

You are using the word "hate" a lot.

 

[Faolyn]

With this sort of argument, why don’t you remove Type as well - why do we need to know that goblinloids are type humanoid when it can just be described in the monster entry? What’s that, there are spells that only work against certain types? Like how Protection from Evil works against Lawful Evil creatures?

Missed this one earlier.

Type is actually useful in 5e for determining if a creature can be affected by certain spells or other effects. Protection from evil and good doesn't work against Lawful Evil creatures. It works against aberrations, celestials, constructs, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. Charm person only affects humanoids. Cure wounds doesn't affect constructs or undead. A cleric or paladin may have the ability to turn undead--or fiends, or fey, or something else.

On the other hand, there are almost no things that require or work against a specific alignment, and most of those are weird magic items.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Some people playing D&D hate almost all its game mechanics: hate character races, classes, alignment, hit points, initiative based turn order.

So why play D$D when so many Indie RPGs are free from all this baggage?

1) Alignment is not a game mechanic. It's a piece of flavor text that has a handful of alignment-centered mechanics. The base alignment system has no mechanics attached to it, and thus is not a game mechanic.
2) I don't hate character classes, and I haven't seen anyone here saying that they do. Nice strawman, but that's not what we're saying or arguing for.
3) We've explained why we dislike alignment and why it was already near-useless mechanically and thematically in D&D. Removing it does not "destroy D&D". Stop with the slippery slope arguments, please.
4) I like hit points. I would like a few changes to them so that they mechanically fit the PHB's description of them and to make going 0 hp =/= sleep anymore, but I like hit points. Stop with the strawmen, please.
5) I like initiative. No one here has said that they want to get rid of initiative. Again, it could use a few tweaks for stuff like Ready actions, but I like the system.

Does getting rid of alignment and slightly changing up hit points and a few other minor parts of systems destroy D&D? I don't think so. Please stop gatekeeping.

 

[imagineGod]

1) Alignment is not a game mechanic. It's a piece of flavor text that has a handful of alignment-centered mechanics. The base alignment system has no mechanics attached to it, and thus is not a game mechanic.
2) I don't hate character classes, and I haven't seen anyone here saying that they do. Nice strawman, but that's not what we're saying or arguing for.
3) We've explained why we dislike alignment and why it was already near-useless mechanically and thematically in D&D. Removing it does not "destroy D&D". Stop with the slippery slope arguments, please.
4) I like hit points. I would like a few changes to them so that they mechanically fit the PHB's description of them and to make going 0 hp = sleep, but I like hit points. Stop with the strawmen, please.
5) I like initiative. No one here has said that they want to get rid of initiative. Again, it could use a few tweaks for stuff like Ready actions, but I like the system.

Does getting rid of alignment and slightly changing up hit points and a few other minor parts of systems destroy D&D? I don't think so. Please stop gatekeeping.

The game is not all about you. There are many arguments on why Character Classes are restrictive to role play. A first level Character class pigeon holes characters into being Magic User without the ability to use Martial Weapons, an artificial restriction that harkens back to D&D history than any valid in-game reason for good role play. So calling out Character Class restrictions is not a strawman. It showcases the alignment haters are selective in their hatred for certain elements of D&D the help other DMs create good encounters on the fly.

Next, I showcased that Hit Points are a terrible injury tracking mechanic that has encourage that dreadful "kill it until dead" style of play in D&D, that other games with better injury tracking do not encourage. Can you please explain what logical reason there is for a 10th Level Fighter to have so many Hit Points compared to a 1st Level Fighter? There is none, HP are a legacy of old D&D encounter balance, not something that is vital if better systems are written like other RPGs seem to have done already.

Regarding Initiative, also a broken system. Why would your character with better Dexterity be last in the imitative order than much slower enemies if your dice rolled badly. If fact your whole party could be lower on the initiative order than the monsters, making for poor overall fun for the Players to witness the DM hacking them one after the other before they get a change to react.

Gatekeeping is refusing to allow other DMs who find alignment useful to get that in the monster stat blocks. Why take toys from others who find them useful?

The option to axe alignment for everyone is more like gatekeeping than the other option of leaving alignment for those who want it but not forcing it in use upon everyone.