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]

You are using the word "hate" a lot.

Why not address the usefulness of shorthand instead of focusing on words not related to the shorthand

 

[BookTenTiger]

Why not address the usefulness of shorthand instead of focusing on words not related to the shorthand

Because your inflammatory language is getting in the way?

I don't see anyone in this conversation "shouting" or using hateful language other than you. I can't imagine you talk with people in real life like this.

If you want to have a real conversation about alignment, how about asking questions, responding respectfully, and challenging assumptions?

Here are some questions for you:

Why do you think WotC is no longer using alignment?

If you feel like alignment serves a useful purpose, what could be used to replace it?

How will removal of alignment change your game? How will it change the game in general, both positively and negatively?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I never argued that...?

 

[Espadadelaaurora]

Give plenty of choices to the gamers and let them choose what is more suitable for their game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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!

Dude, take it down a notch. No one here has run over your puppy with their car.

 

[Charlaquin]

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!

Once again, when you (the general you, not you, imagineGod) don’t have an actual argument, you gesture vaguely at imagined hypocrisy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The game is not all about you.

I never claimed it was. However, the game is all about fun, and fun is inherently subjective to each table (including mine and including yours), so removing a piece of the game is "about me" and my table, and other people that agree with me and their tables.

The game is not all about you, either. You want alignment in the game because you like it, and that's the core of your rebuttal to my argument that alignment already did practically nothing for the game except taking up space in the books with no real benefits to a lot of campaigns and tables.

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.

I believe that 5e's Class/Subclass system is a bit too restrictive, and that Subclasses should determine more than they currently do. However, I'm not advocating for the destruction of the Class/Subclass system, just changing it a bit to promote player creativity a bit more.

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.

It is. It's a red herring and a strawman argument. I'm not arguing to remove the class system, no one in this thread brought it up before you did, and so it's off topic and a strawman. We (my side collectively that dislikes alignment) don't want to get rid of character classes, so bringing it up is the definition of a strawman (a mischaracterization meant to distract away from the actual argument to attack something easier to argue against).

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.

Hit points are a part of video games, card games, and a bunch of other board games and TTRPGs. The 5e PHB describes hit points as a "combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck". They're not just physical durability, it's a mix of other factors. They've already evolved from their original version in D&D. Furthermore, hit points are an essential part of D&D's combat system. Again, this is another strawman. Stop it, please.

Regarding Initiative, also a broken system. Why would you 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.

I have advocated for changes to initiative, like allowing INT/WIS being allowed to be added to it instead of just Dexterity. That would make it a bit more realistic, IMO. Sure, it's unrealistic, but it's essential to how D&D combat works. Alignment in 5e is not essential to anything (it's important to Planescape, but not essential).

So why exactly are you only gatekeeping for the anti-alignment crowd and refusing to allow other DMs who find alignment useful to get that in the monster stat blocks. Why are you so happy to take away toys from others because you personally dislike them?

Wow. I've been accused of gatekeeping by angry grognards twice now. Interesting.

Firstly, I'm not gatekeeping. I recommend you check the definition of it. I'm not claiming that people who use alignment "aren't playing D&D", or don't deserve to be a part of the community, or shouldn't play the game. I've never done that. However, you have claimed that people who get rid of alignment aren't playing D&D. That's gatekeeping. Stop it. Stop accusing me of gatekeeping, because that's another purposeful mischaracterization of what I'm doing/saying (a strawman argument), and it's a personal attack.

I'm not happy to take away toys from other people. I didn't take away this "toy" from you, WotC did. I didn't even ask them to do this, so my joy at it not being in the books is not hurting you in any way.

Your 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.

I want alignment to be restricted to an optional Planescape setting book for 5e and future editions, just like I wanted the Customize your Origin mechanic to be restricted to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for 5e. Alignment was being forced onto me, though, with its inclusion in every D&D book up until Candlekeep Mysteries. Stop trying to play the victim, and stop trying to paint me as the villain. I'm not. It's jerkish behavior and it's not true. Kindly, knock it off, please.

 

[imagineGod]

Dude, take it down a notch. No one here has run over your puppy with their car.

When everyone is quoting my statements like dog piling as if my views are not welcome here. Is that a friendly response you see if you scroll all the way back through this thread?

I never claimed it was. However, the game is all about fun, and fun is inherently subjective to my table, so removing a piece of the game is "about me" and my table, and other people that agree with me and their tables.

The game is not all about you, either. You want alignment in the game because you like it, and that's the core of your rebuttal to my argument that alignment already did practically nothing for the game except taking up space in the books with no real benefits to a lot of campaigns and tables.

I believe that 5e's Class/Subclass system is a bit too restrictive, and that Subclasses should determine more than they currently do. However, I'm not advocating for the destruction of the Class/Subclass system, just changing it a bit to promote player creativity a bit more.

It is. It's a red herring and a strawman argument. I'm not arguing to remove the class system, no one in this thread brought it up before you did, and so it's off topic and a strawman. We (my side collectively that dislikes alignment) don't want to get rid of character classes, so bringing it up is the definition of a strawman (a mischaracterization meant to distract away from the actual argument to attack something easier to argue against).

Hit points are a part of video games, card games, and a bunch of other board games and TTRPGs. The 5e PHB describes hit points as a "combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck". They're not just physical durability, it's a mix of other factors. They've already evolved from their original version in D&D. Furthermore, hit points are an essential part of D&D's combat system. Again, this is another strawman. Stop it, please.

I have advocated for changes to initiative, like allowing INT/WIS being allowed to be added to it instead of just Dexterity. That would make it a bit more realistic, IMO. Sure, it's unrealistic, but it's essential to how D&D combat works. Alignment in 5e is not essential to anything (it's important to Planescape, but not essential).

Wow. I've been accused of gatekeeping by angry grognards twice now. Interesting.

Firstly, I'm not gatekeeping. I recommend you check the definition of it. I'm not claiming that people who use alignment "aren't playing D&D", or don't deserve to be a part of the community, or shouldn't play the game. I've never done that. However, you have claimed that people who get rid of alignment aren't playing D&D. That's gatekeeping. Stop it. Stop accusing me of gatekeeping, because that's another purposeful mischaracterization of what I'm doing/saying (a strawman argument), and it's a personal attack.

I'm not happy to take away toys from other people. I didn't take away this "toy" from you, WotC did. I didn't even ask them to do this, so my joy at it not being in the books is not hurting you in any way.

I want alignment to be restricted to an optional Planescape setting book for 5e and future editions, just like I wanted the Customize your Origin mechanic to be restricted to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for 5e. Alignment was being forced onto me, though, with its inclusion in every D&D book up until Candlekeep Mysteries. Stop trying to play the victim, and stop trying to paint me as the villain. I'm not. It's jerkish behavior and it's not true. Kindly, knock it off, please.

I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.

You know what? I don't really care. I begin to not care about offending a person when the same person that knows nothing about me decides that I hate D&D, want to steal all the fun away from you, and needs to be kicked out of the hobby that both helped me learn useful social skills as someone with Autism Spectrum Disorder and kept my depression from (possible trigger warning) potentially progressing into suicidal thoughts and attempts. I don't care if that offends you. You have attacked me personally and refused to debate in good faith, so I feel that one mention of the word "grognard" is both accurate and warranted.

Edit: I will make it clear that I didn't mean it offensively. I meant it as "veteran player", which is its meaning.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When everyone is quoting my statements like dog piling as if my views are not welcome here. Is that a friendly response you see if you scroll all the way back through this thread?

You started off combative, have escalated with every response and then use everyone else's corresponding escalations as reason to escalate further.

I find the world "grognard" personally insulating, since you do not know my history and just made an assumption by quoting my name in the post right before using grognard as a slur in response to my views of what I like about older D&D modules.

Grognard literally means you're a veteran player. Saying people are using "slurs" is a great example of the extreme escalation happening here.

Also, spoiler alert: You guys aren't going to come to any agreement on alignment on this thread.