Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession
United States
DreamForge Intertainment (developer); Strategic Simulations, Inc. (publisher)
Released in 1994 for DOS, 1995 for FM Towns and PC-98
Date Started: 14 August 2026
Date Ended: 30 October 2026
Total Hours: 36
Difficulty: Moderate (3.0/5), but with a lot of variance across maps.
Final Rating: (to come later)
Ranking at time of posting: (to come later) Summary:
Based on early 1990s revisions to the classic 1983 module, Ravenloft starts with an Eye of the Beholder template (first-person, four-characters, action combat) but adds some upgraded features, including continuous movement, voiced dialogue, more complex graphics, and an excellent automap. Though lacking the puzzles of Beholder (and thus moving further away from its Dungeon Master roots), it exceeds the earlier game in lore and atmosphere.
****
Since I started this project, I've played plenty of games that were flawed. (I suppose you might even say that all of them were flawed, none of them managing to earn a score of 100 on the GIMLET.) Some games are flawed in their very conception; they introduce elements or mechanics that never had any hope of being any good. They took a wrong turn and hit a dead end.
Other games are flawed because even though they're on the right road, they just weren't able to go far enough. That's Ravenloft. There's nothing about it that by itself is a bad idea. It has a storied, atmospheric setting, and interesting blend of created PCs and joinable NPCs, decent mechanics for character development and equipment, "banter" from the party members, visuals that enhance the ambience, and a fast, exciting approach to action combat. Reading through that list, you probably wanted to say, "Okay, but . . ." a few times, and I agree with you. There are ways in which the combat doesn't really work well. The NPCs stop being personalities once they join the party. The "banter" is not customized to the speaker. The inventory system is a bit of a mess. Perhaps most important, the graphics and sound aren't quite where they need to be to realize the developers' vision. But almost all of these deficiencies are matters of improvement on good foundational elements. If anyone wanted to remake Ravenloft, they would need to enhance, not start over.
Over the years, I've suggested a few modifications to the GIMLET that have never really stuck, such as the Bolingbroke Outcome-to-Hours Ratio (BOTHR) and the Range of Suffering to Enjoyment Score (ROSES). Ravenloft has a low BOTHR; stuff is always happening. It also has a low ROSES score; its worst elements aren't much worse than its best elements. Lower in both cases is better. Here's a metric in which higher is better: the Bolingbroke Expectations-to-Experience Range (BETER), or the distance between what I expected when I started the game and what I rated it at the end. Going into Ravenloft, I expected something like 35, solely on the basis that it doesn't seem as well-known as Eye of the Beholder (1991), which I rated a 41. But aside from its approach to mechanical puzzles (which I can enjoy but don't consider central to my RPG experience), I find Ravenloft reasonably BETER than Beholder, with an expected a GIMLET of around 50. That won't hit my Top 10 list or anything, but it's always nice to beat expectations by 15 points. [Ed. Or 9, as the actual result turned out to be.]
One of the elements that I enjoyed about Ravenloft is its epistolary storytelling. It's one of the most compelling reasons to explore. No longsword +3 excites me as much as a scroll or journal that fills in some part of the game's lore. Even better is when a game can combine epistolary storytelling with visual storytelling. Think of the edict against spreading "rumors" about Sergei's murder and Tatyana's suicide coupled with the painting in which a man's head has been scratched out. The only thing that would make it better is if the graphics had been clear about what the painting was showing.
It really is too bad that this was one of the final SSI/TSR pairings. I would have liked to see where they went with it. But even without any enhancements, I enjoyed this game enough that I'm really looking forward to Menzoberrranzan later this year and Ravenloft: Stone Prophet in 1995, which I understand use essentially the same interface.
I took a look at the official cluebook for the game, and it doesn't appear to me that I missed anything significant. I met all the NPCs, explored all the maps. I was curious how I was supposed to get into one missed area of the Old Church, Lower Level 1, but the guide wasn't any use there. It did tell me that the only thing I missed on the other side was "a number of useful cleric scrolls."
The guide did inform me that there were significant differences between the CD-ROM and floppy disk versions of the game. The entire paladin side-quest was missing on the disk version, as well as two NPCs: Velika and Ryszard. There were fewer graphical distinctions between monsters of the same basic type (e.g., zombies and zombie lords looked exactly the same) and items of the same type, when dropped on the ground. The disk version had no digitized voices, more limited cinematics, no wandering villagers (not that they added much), and no "atmospheric rats, bats, and crows," which I have to admit I barely noticed. The disk version did have one advantage: a scroll of "Improved Identify" near the beginning of the game.
I either missed a scroll of "Invisibility" somewhere or one of the mage NPCs that I didn't take had it natively. It apparently trivializes the game, allowing the player to kill enemies with impunity with missile weapons.
I'm curious whether it's at all possible to defeat Strahd without the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind. My attacks were doing 1 damage to him. That should make it theoretically possible to winnow him down to 0 as long as the party can survive that long. Maybe he regenerates, though.
I still don't like writing the long GIMLET paragraphs, but fine, I'll concede to everyone who doesn't like the table by constructing it like this:
1. Game World: 7
Assets
- An evocative setting with a full backstory made relevant by the game's encounters, such as the skeletons on stakes and the villagers huddled in their homes.
- Solid epistolary and visual story telling.
- Something different from the standard high fantasy setting.
- Clear role for the characters in the story.
Liabilities
- Requires some knowledge out outside materials to fully appreciate
- World doesn't change much based on player decisions.
2. Character Creation and Development: 4
Assets
- Fairly standard AD&D character creation process, which is reasonably good.
- Nice selection of character portraits.
- Typical experience point/leveling development, though see negatives.
Liabilities
- No gameplay elements or dialogue specific to character classes.
- Not much for a thief to do.
- No quest experience.
- Leveling is the same non-event as a typical D&D game for non-spellcasters.
3. NPCs: 5
Assets
- NPC encounters offer full-sentence dialogue.
- A variety of joinable NPCs to compensate for character weaknesses, each with a backstory and goal.
- Joinable NPCs and PCs have in-party dialogue throughout the game.
- Other NPCs really flesh out the game world.
Liabilities
- NPCs lose personality once they join the party. No particular acknowledgement of their goals or the completion thereof.
- Full-sentence dialogue options are not really "options," just an exhaustive list of things you can say. No choices = no role-playing.
![]() |
| The NPCs have unique personalities, at least until they join the party. |
4. Encounters and Foes: 5
Assets
- The D&D bestiary always has interesting monsters with a variety of strengths and weaknesses.
- Each foe is well-described in the game manual.
- A few non-combat encounters like the priest trapped in the mirror and the banshee in the cemetery.
Liabilities
- The way that enemies just charge right at the characters limits the tactical possibilities inherent in their strengths and weaknesses.
- Most non-combat encounters are essentially NPC dialogues and thus rewarded there.
- Not many puzzles except for the lock-and-key type.
- Enemies respawn, but not enough to allow for any significant grinding.
5. Magic and Combat: 4
Assets
- Fast and exciting.
- Terrain offers some tactical possibilities.
- Usual solid combination of D&D offensive and defensive spells.
Liabilities
- Action combat doesn't work terribly well with D&D rules.
- Offensive spells tough to use in combat.
- No restoration spells in a game with level-draining undead.
- Most "terrain" possibilities feel like cheating.
6. Equipment: 5
Assets
- Good variety of items to find/equip.
- Generally easy enough to evaluate items, but see "weaknesses."
- Equipment from dropped party members automatically transfers to replacement.
- Sensible encumbrance system.
Liabilities
- Could have used more spell scrolls.
- Lack of identification options other than a single "Improved Identify" makes it hard to evaluate stuff.
- Items all appear at fixed locations.
7. Economy: 0
There is no economy.
8. Quests: 4
Assets
- Compelling, somewhat low-stakes main quest.
- A few side quests along the way.
Liabilities
- No role-playing opportunities in quests.
- No alternate endings.
9. Graphics, Sound, and Interface: 5
Assets
- We're past wall textures. Graphics help make the world feel more real with furnishings, decorations, and details (this asset also contributed to "Game World").
- An excellent, detailed automap with the ability to make notes.
- Smooth movement with step movement as a possibility.
- Some decent atmospheric sound effects.
- Developers tapped as voice actors try their best.
- Quick save/Quick load.
Liabilities
- Graphic quality is typical mid-1990s, in the unfortunate valley between high-quality abstract graphics and high-quality immersive graphics.
- The 3D environment is very basic—no up/down, no slopes. Can't put items on top of things.
- Voice acting is pretty bad.
- Sound has no sense of modulation or direction; some effects get repetitively annoying.
- Interface could have used more keyboard shortcuts.
- The game really needed to pause when the spellbook was invoked.
- Annoying to transition to and from inventory during combat.
![]() |
| Some of the cutscenes were quite nice. |
10. Gameplay: 5
Assets
- Some mild replayability with different character classes and NPC choices.
- Just about a perfect length for its content.
- Good average difficulty.
Liabilities
- Mostly linear except in a few minor ways.
- Not very replayable.
- Significant difficulty range. It mostly comes down to individual battles, since the game is a bit too generous with resting.
Final score: 44
Well, that was a surprise. I really thought it would rate significantly higher. I actually thought it was possible that I'd give every category a 5. I guess I was forgetting the lack of economy, which some of you wouldn't have included at all, but I wouldn't have minded if the game had offered fewer potions on the floors and gold instead. Barovia should have had a little shop where the player could identify items and perhaps buy magic scrolls. It would have also been nice if the church had offered healing services, including resurrection (with no constitution loss) and restoration.
But I don't see anything I want to adjust, so 44 it is. It still rates higher than any of the Eye of the Beholder games, which I agree with. A rating of 50 would have put it on the same level as Betrayal at Krondor or Dark Queen of Krynn, and yeah, I guess that would have been a stretch.
For the past few years, every time I've opened an issue of Computer Gaming World, I have been relentlessly mocked by the same ad for Wolfenstein 3D: Spear of Destiny (1992), making me feel like I'm making no progress. Finally, for the issue that I go to consult for a review of Strahd's Possession (June 1994), it is gone. It has been replaced by an ad for Disciples of Steel, which I played eleven goddamned years ago. Yes, I realize the DOS port didn't come out until 1993, but still.
I was a bit disappointed to see that Scorpia hadn't covered the game, but I agree with the reviewer that did, Petra Schlunk, about 75% of the time. That nudges up to about 80% given her review of Strahd's Possession, and to the extent I don't agree with parts of it, it has more to do with the intervening 32 years than the literal text. For instance, she mentions all the positives of NPC dialogue but none of the lack of role-playing, but then again, not many games were giving true dialogue options in 1994. She enjoyed the graphics and sound more than I did because she didn't know that better versions of both things were just a few years away. She complained about a couple of technical issues that have been solved since then. Otherwise, her review reads so closely to my GIMLET that I'd forgive you for thinking that I cribbed from it.
Reviews accompanied by ratings tended to place Strahd's Possession in the low B range, which I think is fair. T. Liam McDonald gave it 82% in the inaugural issue of PC Gamer (June 1994, which I'd better keep at hand because it also includes a review of Pagan). "In terms of graphics, cinematics, story, and sound effects," he wrote, "It is an ambitious and satisfying endeavor—one of [SSI's] best yet." The worst he could say is that AD&D mechanics (weapons, spells, attributes) were getting kind of old. Computer Game Review, which I'm not sure I've ever consulted before, had three competing reviews in its June 1994 issue, with ratings at 85%, 83%, and 77%. Graphics and sound rated highly among the reviewers; interface and playability had no consistency; "replay value" was universally low. The reviews are interesting because at least two of them were familiar with the tabletop module and were judging the game by how well it evoked that experience. "It is a game only for reminding yourself of what might have been," said the worst reviewer; the top reviewer was a bit optimistic: "Some of its ideas will help usher along the next generation of CRPGs."
The primary designers of the game are listed as Thomas J. Holmes and Christopher L. Straka, the co-founders (along with James Namestka) of Event Horizon/DreamForge Entertainment. Both had worked for Paragon Software before jumping ship around 1990. We've seen their early work with DarkSpyre (1990), Dusk of the Gods (1991), The Summoning (1992), and Veil of Darkness (1993). My understanding is that DreamForge had a bad experience publishing their first two games and approached SSI with The Summoning and Veil of Darkness. SSI was impressed enough that when they sought a new developer after parting ways with Westwood Studios, DreamForge was the obvious choice. Their first job was developing Dungeon Hack (1993) based on the Eye of the Beholder interface. That experience must have proven vital for the later development of Strahd's Possession, which feels very little like DreamForge's early titles.
Strahd's Possession apparently sold well enough to justify two more titles using the same engine: Menzoberranzan (1994) and Ravenloft: Stone Prophet (1995), the latter of which would be either the penultimate or final D&D title from SSI (I'm not sure whether it came before or after DeathKeep). The Ravenloft setting would have one more incarnation, in Take-Two's Iron & Blood: Warriors of Ravenloft (1996), but I'm given to understand that it's a pure action game. Apparently, next year's Warlock: Dungeons & Dragons will feature some Ravenloft (or at least Demiplane of Dread) content, but again as an action-adventure.
Strahd's Possession wasn't an epic experience, but it was a solid one, and it occurs to me that I might say the same thing about a lot of 1994 games so far, including Al-Qadim, Yendorian Tales, and The Elder Scrolls: Arena. Maybe that will turn out to be the theme for the year: games that don't seem to be well-remembered but don't deserve to be entirely forgotten.
****
Further reading:
- My "Index of Games by Lineage" has both all licensed Dungeons & Dragons games and all Dungeon Master clones.
- The original Ravenloft module.
- Saintus's coverage of the game at CRPG Revisiting Old Classics.












































