However, most of them exist for a reason, and it isn't bad design: it's just a design you don't agree with. All of the flaws you list are parts of the game that some people won't like.
I like both Betrayal and Descent, but neither of them actually are that close to Castle Ravenloft.ĭoes this mean you're wrong to not like Castle Ravenloft? Of course not. (I've had many games when you're reduced to exploring room after room, hoping to find the chamber you need to win the game). It also allows for more tactical and strategic decisions throughout the game, something lacking from the first half of Betrayal and possibly lacking as well in the second half. The wild swings of fate can go against you (or for you) at times, but mostly you'll end up in the middle. In contrast, Castle Ravenloft is pretty balanced. or games which give the traitor no chance or the heroes no chance. It is also infamous for badly balanced scenarios. I would seriously consider either of the games previously mentioned above this. The poorly-conceived systems diminish its playability, and its small number of scenarios limit its replayability. There are planty of other good cooperative games to measure this against. Primarily cooperative, it uses a traitor mechanic that causes one player to unexpectedly betray the party, which sets into motion a story-driven scenario, where both the traitor and the rest of the players have distinct win conditions. A better horror exploration game that plays in a similar amount of time is Betrayal at House on the Hill (mentioned earlier). Its gameplay is smoother and more satisfying, but it does not play so quickly. Also a dungeon crawl game, Descent has one player operate as the Overlord, controlling the monsters. And while it is nice that all players cooperate, the tactics they use largely make them feel the same.Īnother game that occupies this same conceptual space is Descent. We came to realize that this character was just not viable for playing.Īnother weakness is the Exploration/Encounter system, as I mentioned before. Castle Ravenloft's Exploration/Encounter system heavily penalizes the wizard character for having fewer hit points than the other characters.
Their weakness is typically lack of ability to take damage, represented by a low hit point total. A wizard's strength is being able to attacks enemies from afar, often multiple ones. There are several reasons why this is problematic.ĭ&D characters have strengths and weaknesses. There is no opportunity for reaction, tactics, etc. Every tile has a monster, and every monster immediately attacks the character.
You go to the edge of the board, and lay down a random tile. The exploration system is my primary problem with the game.
Players then take turns moving and exploring, with player turns working much like D&D turns. The way the game is structured, you have a scenario with a win condition known at the start of the game (the sessions I played were an escort mission, and a quest to kill a dracolich). Sadly, I found this game to be severely lacking. Though not a fan of D&D 4th edition, I did consider that ruleset would make a great boardgame. Reviews I have read implied that the game was somewhat of a cross between D&D 4th edition and Betrayal at House on the Hill (an excellent cooperative game with multiple scenarios). I just had the opportunity to play the Dungeons and Dragons Castle Ravenloft game, and I have to say that I am disappointed.