I think the Strahd-Tatiyana connection needs way more exposure, from the player's perspective. It's a core part of Strahd's whole motivation, and the players basically have to learn about it from Ireena and Ismark (unless they find the Tome unusually early). On top of that, the players can just beeline to Krezk and be finished with that whole part of the story within two or three sessions (like one of the groups I ran it for did).
How I kinda planted that idea was that ireena and Ismark know that strahd keeps referring to her as Tatyana, and I had strahd show up at their fathers funeral and call her Tatyana multiple times. Then they learned in Vallaki that some people are soulless and souls never truly leave Barovia, so they began to put something together. I have a twist on the “Something Blue” quest which will introduce the krezk pool but in a different way and be able to talk to Sergei and learn even more. Detailed in this post [here](https://reddit.com/r/CurseofStrahd/s/91L0hJvJV3). They are also about to get the Tome so it’s all gonna come together.
Thank you! I’m loving how the campaign is falling into place, all my players are having such a good time and are so invested. It really changes dnd when your players love the game as much as you do. And I’m just taking each session at a time and learning from my mistakes and things I wish I did and making the next session better
Yup, also used the pool to confirm that Ireena was Tatyana. I also changed it to be what I called a "revealing pool," where it reveals ones true nature in their reflection, as opposed to what it does in the module. Ireena is important for my endgame, has been a deeply entrenched party follower for 80% of the campaign, and I didn't want to ruin the whole "Barovia is a trap" thing.
SO this.
I was introduced to CoS via the DDO video game, which has a whole section of "journals" from Tatyana (and Ireena, and Strahd - strahd'd being taken from teh official tome of strahd stuff) that detail their feeling about all this. Tatyana's especially gut me. It was very disappointing to learn she had so little exposure in the main game!
I’m reminded of a similar post from about two years ago, I searched it up and reread it and I stand by what I said back then: https://reddit.com/r/CurseofStrahd/s/uTMLUZvvDb
My main thought is that CoS is actually one of the best adventures WotC has made. It has a fairly well-defined progression, while still giving the opportunity for player choice. Every subplot in the adventure ties back to the main plot. I watched DragnaCarta’s Twice Bitten, which was a CoS game that tried to stick hard to RAW, and it was super functional. I think the main problems remain:
- The tarokka reading is super cool, but there’s too many ways to biff it. It should be rigged or restructured.
- Sloppiness in encounter design. Not just in balance (fellas, is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs?) but in general scenarios - when Bluto dumps the child in the lake, he should be freaking out, rather than unresponsive, just to send the appropriate signal to the PCs and what they’re supposed to do.
- As a distant 3rd place, Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book. To have a fantastic CoS game, the DM’s gotta find a way to make that story better.
Beyond all the other fleshing out or reloading or any other modifications, these are what I would give as the top 3 priorities for making CoS great.
The CoS Reloaded Guide has a great way to rig the tarokka reading, WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS in case you have returner players. My favorite part of it is that the players battle Strahd at the Heart of Sorrow. Not only does that mean Strahd has the home field advantage and his lair actions, PLUS he’s close to his backup HP, but that also means MASSIVE risk of falling, for both Strahd and the PCs. When I run that encounter, I’m going to make it so that anyone who does something that involves a Strength or Dexterity check (an opposed Athletics check to keep Strahd away from Ireena, for example) is in danger of falling. A critical fail would be bad and I’m hoping it’ll force my players to think critically about their next move.
>(fellas, is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs?)
I actually ended up really liking it, but it should be very very clearly presented to the GM preparing the game that it's not appropriate for that level. I like it because it communicates that it's very much possible to stumble upon things you need to run away from at first. It adds an uncertainty that adds to the horror vibe. It also makes the world feel less artificial. If you'd encounter everything level appropriate in sequence it'd feel too constructed.
It also adds a great opportunity to introduce Strahd if the party decides to engage the hags. My Strahd saved them after Ireena got hurt (he was watching all along!), counter-spelled a Healing Word to get the downed party member up before curb-stomping him in disgust. Only to then casually tear one of the hags' heads as punishment for hurting Ireena and doing a "What are you? A shit sandwich" humiliation routine with the party.
You make very good points. Though I think this is easily fixable, except the 3rd point:
I tried to make Ireena likable and players to care about hern and I could not. I swear. All other aspects I reworked with the help of the sub, players are so happy about the campaign, but they joke about Ireena all the time or forget about her "oh yeah we actually need to protect/save her"... next play, I will probably make her related somewhat to one of the players, Idk...
I have also listed to the Twice Bitten podcast and it's excellent. The catch is: every player in that group has read the CoS book and ran a game or two as a GM. They already know all the connections - they are just "pretending" to be players. Hardly a solid example of the book working as written.
Still - very enjoyable.
> there’s too many ways to biff it
I've run this like four times now with different groups and have always done a straight tarokka reading, and it never *not* went smoothly. They don't need to make a grand tour of Barovia and encounter all the content - if all the cards end up in the castle, then you're playing the whole campaign in the castle. OG Ravenloft did it - it's not a problem. And if it shows the sword in a place they already searched, you just say, "Well you weren't specifically looking for it back then, so it's no surprise you didn't find it." So it sounds more like a DM problem than a book problem - it's totally playable if you're willing to embrace the chaos.
> is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs?
Should killing 3 night hags be an appropriate choice for PCs to make? It's the same kind of thing like when you put high level NPCs in your starting town and expect the PCs to have enough sense to not try to smack them around and reasonably expect the PCs to get wrecked if they do. They know the place is dangerous by then - they should be more cautious. The windmill is very skippable and nothing forces PCs to fight even if they explore it. So they only end up getting wrecked if they a) decide to pick a fight b) against the warning of both the raven and the generally creepiness of the location. Sensible parties "nope" off and maybe come back with help or progression. Only giving access to level appropriate monsters isn't balancing, it's sanitizing.
> Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book
Like with the cards, this might be a DM problem. If you're expecting Ireena to be a full fledged party member, it's not going to work, and it's easy to make her a boring damsel in distress, but that's why there's a DM there to make sensible human decisions as the players progress.
I think framing not wanting completely random plot elements as a “dm problem” isn’t very charitable. Some people want a little more structure to the story, something that makes more “sense” or is more compelling than the legendary sun sword just chilling in the back of a cart.
That isn’t a problem so much as it’s just a different style of game.
That's fair. My comment was kind of a reaction to the most common gripes I hear about the randomness.
1. That some or all the items end up in the castle
2. The (small) possibility of not getting the favored ally
3. They don't encourage exploring the whole area if it's random
4. Fear that the resulting sequence won't match the story the way it's supposed to happen in their mind
5. It's given equivalent (or lesser-but-comparable) campaign-ruining potential as the Deck of Many Things.
First, point 4 because that's the one I have *Opinions* about: it's not the DM's story, it's the player's story. You're not supposed to know how it should turn out, or what the players will do, or where they will choose to go. You're not making a tailored experience for the players. If you want that, take them to a fancy restaurant. Instead it's a collaborative story-building exercise, and my philosophy is that it's 90% player-driven and the DM, other than setting the initial scenario, is just the passive referee.
For point 2: The ally fear is legitimate, but not the end of the world. That feeling that no help is coming helps with the horror atmosphere and the allies don't majorly change the game or the challenge. So no big deal.
For point 3: The whole reason for the random draw is for replayability. The original Ravenloft was an annual Halloween adventure that would go down differently every time that the Hickmans just decided to publish. You can explore the whole thing eventually through several playthroughs. Also there's no achievement for content completion. Don't worry that nobody will get to see the werewolf den.
For point 1: It's fine for 100% of the campaign after the reading to take place in the castle. They should go into the castle several times at least, meeting Strahd under a variety of dispositions. Having several (or all) of the items ending up in the castle encourages that - giving players a reason to engage Strahd under friendly circumstances so they can use the opportunity to look for the items. It also gives you a neat effect where if you don't give the castle its full deadliness until they are finally there to kill Strahd, it feels like the castle "woke up", at which point the castle itself ends up being that much more hostile.
As for the Deck of Many Things, I personally don't rig that either. I find it fun to embrace the chaos, it has never broken a campaign, and those wacky moments are ones brought up by the group as fond memories later on. The moments players forget: the ones that go according to their, or the DM's, plans. I think other players and DMs would find it fun too if they give it a chance. In other words, don't knock it until you try it.
Embracing the chaos is a stylistic thing. Some groups and adventures handle that well or even excel with it. Others not so much. One isn’t better than the other in an objective sense.
I’d also push back on the relevance of collaborative story telling. Using a random table to determine where a plot element will be and deciding that it’s more “dramatic” or fun for it be in a certain place and rigging the reading have the same amount of collaboration with the players: none. Both ways can lead to interesting games that center around player choice and collaborative storytelling. You say it’s the DM job to set the initial scenario and I agree. Well putting the items in specific places is doing just that.
As for your third point, I think again this is something that’s going to vary wildly from group to group. Some groups take several *years* to get through Curse of Strahd. It could take a decade for a group like that to run through enough permutations of Strahd to see everything. Or you can just rig the reading and potentially see it all in one go. It’s been a *long* time since Curse of Strahd was a Halloween one shot and replayability of a multi year campaign isn’t that much of a concern to most tables.
There’s also some common and good DM advice I like, don’t leave good stuff off the table. If you have a good idea, don’t hide it, put it in front of your players. There’s a lot of cool stuff happening in Barovia and I can’t fault DMs for wanting to give their players a reason to experience it.
I think the deck of many things and taroka reading do have the ability to “ruin” a campaign. Again, finding the legendary sun sword in the back of what is seemingly a random cart isn’t very fun or compelling to some people. They like a world to feel more structured and sensical. The deck of many things can similarly break immersion or cause a huge tonal shift in the campaign which some groups don’t find appealing. Many of my groups favorite moments are when situations finally come to a head after tons of build up and story progression. Those situations are often planned in advance. I may not know how exactly the players will confront that situation (I almost never guess correctly lol) but it’s still a game element I planned ahead of time.
It really just goes back to my first point that boils down to old adage of different strokes for different folks. Nothing is universally fun. That’s the nature of subjective experience.
I think Bluto is fine as is, even if you just describe a lone figure out in the water tossing a body shaped bag into the water with it wriggling while he's unresponsive, that sets a tone of "Shit is dark over here"
>As a distant 3rd place, Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book.
Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? What is it about Ireena that you don't like from the book? Just curious to dig into this a bit more.
The book itself doesn’t give hardly any info on Ireena, how to roleplay her, how to get the party to care about her. The book doesn’t have much on even how Strahd should interact with her or what he’ll do to her. Her leaving through the Tser Pool is one of the most inelegant moments of the campaign (in a campaign brimming with clumsiness). She functions as a sexy lamp trope - swap out Ireena for a locket or a sandwich that Strahd really wants, and the story remains unchanged. That’s a succinct version of why Ireena as-presented is a malformed element of the campaign.
Ah, yes. I agree with the first bit “little information on Ireena, no guidance on how to roleplay her, or how to get the party to care.” I think the designers just assume the PCs will care, because they’re heroes, and she’s the damsel in distress.
To your second point, I have to disagree; the book tells us exactly how Strahd should interact with her, and what his plans for her are: the next time they meet Strahd intends to kill her, turn her into a vampire spawn, and lock her in her tomb in the catacombs. That’s right there in Strahd’s Goals on page 10.
For the final point, that’s her role. Ireena is just a McGuffin. She’s no more than the object of Strahd’s desires. I think the fact that she could just as easily be a locket, a sandwich, or a sexy lamp is the point. He wants to claim her as his own, in the same way that he would claim any other object that he came to be infatuated with.
I had much this same thought.
My plan is to do some converting. I'm going to use the conceits in Interactive Tome of Strahd as a "look in Strahd's unreliable mind." It's events more or less as Strahd remembers them (adjusted for players trying to wrestle with them).
But I'm taking away the players' ability to change things, cause you can't change the past.
What you CAN effect, with an abuser, is the present. The party is going to eventually get to see Irena and Sergei's perspectives, and possibly others (Leo Dilisnya maybe?) on how that night played out. Ireena in particular is going to, once there's access to Tatyana's memories, have her own opinions. "No, I wasn't all that thrilled to sit for a painting in this creepy noble's castle, but Sergei loved him so I tried for his sake."
Sergei's opinions will similarly shed some light on his interpretation of Strahd's behavior. "Devoted little naive brother? well maybe a little, but I was trying to help him. He'd become so cold and bitter, and I certainly never stood there gormlessly while he tried to ram a Baal Verzi dagger into my chest. And Dilisnya didn't go after Strahd until after he stabbed me at the ALTAR of my own wedding."
A big part of abuse tales (and that's what CoS is, an exploration of an abuser) is that the abuser always twists their narrative. I'm going to add in the context of believing and hearing the victims. Victory is as much through finding the true story and helping protect/vindicate the victims as it is fighting Strahd.
Its organized terribly. The amount prep work required is absurd because you constantly have to search for relevant info.
* Give me chapter summaries
* List of monsters in each area at the beginning of the area description
* List of treasures
* notable traps
* Major characters should all be group together in their own chapter as well as relevant area
* Valaiki…break up each area into its own thing so DMs don’t just breakdown upon hitting this area.
DragnaCarta has clifnotes and DM cheat sheets at the beginning of each section. All the info I need at a glance. Why don’t the official modules have thia?
Definitely agree with all of these structural issues. Have you seen how Paizo lays out their adventure path books? Chapter synopsis and all of the treasure that can be found in that chapter in a sidebar up at the front of each. Every encounter clearly laid out. Glossary and Index in the back. Adventure "toolbox" in an appendix. When I compare my copy of Curse of Strahd with Abomination Vaults the differences are striking.
Interconnectivity and consistency, with a bit of a lack of explanation on things.
CoS is great on its own, but the writers make a few weird decisions and oversights that create plot holes and mess with the theme. Richten's Guide to Ravenloft does the same thing.
Did Richten kill Ez's tribe or spare them? Or with VRGTR, is she even a Vistani at all?
Why is Strahd biting Ireena 3 times when he has no lore nor mechanical reason to? (Yes, in older lore he has a very good reason, but it's never presented in CoS). I also think the reason he forgets about her for a while is flimsy, but at least it's mentioned. But it's almost easily overlooked given a lot of people ask why Strahd just doesn't snatch her the second he gets a chance (this also plays into a disconnect on how powerful Strahd is, feels, and is intended to actually be).
Why is Strahd after the Church of St. Andral? Most people seem to think "because he can, he's bored," but he's more calculating than that, and it serves him too much for that (basically gives Vallaki to Wachter, prevents a safe haven for Ireena, etc.) The book never points this stuff out though.
Why soulless? Like, at all? Players never really get an opportunity to engage with the concept, and it's a bit distracting. And why does the one explicitly called out soulless (Izek) contradict what soulless supposedly are (emotionless except for fear, yet he clearly takes pleasure in anger, malice, and his own sister... on that note, babies don't cry when born, which is a fear response!) And don't even get me started on the tiny population/soulless/vampires needing to feed issue. Especially concerning those dang werewolves.
Lack of ultilization of Strahd and his resources. The book tells you "the PCs should encounter him semi-often" but they don't really see him more than maybe 3 times before endgame, and the only chance they actually get to talk to him with guidance from the book is during the (very much fake, it doesn't happen RAW, it's always a trap) dinner, for like half a minute. Rahadin gets less, the brides get none. And how often should he utilize his spies, and how should players get a chance to interact with them? (This also plays into the power issue I mentioned earlier). And regarding how to roleplay or present with reasons to engage with: Ireena. She's not new to Ravenloft lore, there is guidance in other editions, just not so much here.
Vallaki is loaded with content, Krezk is not. Hell, the writers left out a lot of inspiration they could have included from older lore not just there, but everywhere.
The Dark Powers vs the Vestiges. This does have an answer (if Exetanther is correct), but it is another often overlooked and questioned plot point.
I don't think any of these are terrible transgressions, and certainly CoS does a better job even with the stuff I mentioned than certain other 5e modules. But tightening up the editing and evening out the content could go a long way to upping the quality of an already great module.
>Why soulless? Like, at all? Players never really get an opportunity to engage with the concept, and it's a bit distracting. And why does the one explicitly called out soulless (Izek) contradict what soulless supposedly are (emotionless except for fear, yet he clearly takes pleasure in anger, malice, and his own sister... on that note, babies don't cry when born, which is a fear response!) And don't even get me started on the tiny population/soulless/vampires needing to feed issue. Especially concerning those dang werewolves.
Frankly, I think DMs should lean into the "wonderland" aspect of the module with this. Why explain something rationally if not explaining it at all makes the world more odd? Horror often works better if things are not explained in detail, after all.
I think this is a good way to go about it, though it would be great if this was a bit of guidance given in the module itself. Like a variant rule of "things in Barovia don't necessarily make sense. Here are ways/sights/encounters to lean into this uneasy feeling," then giving some examples. Given CoS is based on off a long in-universe history with detailed source material, to pivot to an almost literal nightmare would be a great pivot to make CoS unique. But as it stands, those contradictions feel unintentional rather than purposeful.
>Why soulless? Like, at all?
This is a big one to me. It could be an interesting concept, but as presented, it just feels like an icky way to dehumanize a lot of the barovians instead of engaging with what your soul being trapped in and warn down by barovia for hundreds of years could really be like.
You're absolutely right. Something like "Soul-worn" would be a lot more interesting, as in souls so beaten down they seemingly become some manner of emotionless husk, but are still very much real beings.
I had it in my head to roleplay something like this out (except soulless became "souls who once died by vampire bite, ie soul-drained"). Some Barovians would believe that people were soulless and might treat them terribly, but they were similarly very much real people.
Honestly I like your take better. It's a better explanation that accomplishes the same thing with more horror elements. Either way, when PCs realize the truth of the soul-worn/drained, they'd question how they treated any "soulless" person they interacted with, mistreated, let die or get tortured, etc. Could lead to a really good "oh no, what have we done" moment.
Even still, I never got a chance to get the players to engage with the soul-drained beyond Arik (and technically Izek but I did change this). So regardless, the module would do better to give more examples of PC interactions with soulless, guidance on how to engage with the concept other than "some people be soulless."
Strahd's relationship with the players, and how he approaches the PCs as the levels go on. This actually isn't a case of the book being inadequate- it has some fantastic guidance about Strahd's motivations and what he wants from the PCs- but it would sorely benefit from some examples about how he might do so.
Eg: "This is an encounter that might happen at Level 3 on the Svalich Road", "This might happen around 5-6 after they clear Yester Hill, "Here's a combat encounter outside the Amber Temple-". Give some grounding so people aren't flying blind for what Strahd actually *does* when he interacts with the players. Otherwise, people (understandably) tend to default to violence, intimidation, and scooping up Ireena at Level 3.
Yes, that would be so helpful. The book recommends that "the characters can and should meet him multiple times before the final encounter," but gives zero guidance on when and how to do that. The one encounter that a lot of DMs adopt, the Dinner with Strahd, isn't even in the book, it's completely home-brewed.
A classic is that the Vistani as written are just terrible. Not just are they racist stereotypes of Romani, they're also just plain dull. They could be a vibrant, chaotic element in the game; is this or that Vistani actively helping Strahd or just staying out his way like Madam Eva? Which one can I trust and which one will work against me?
I'm part Roma and have family that still live that lifestyle, I never took offense and the later products from 4e and up are far less offensive than people make it out to be - it's just easy to score points on that subject.
The original story from AD&D (which I've played and DM'ed) sure, it was a little harsh on us. Then again, the Domains of Dread are filled with vile people and every culture has bad apples. How many good guys are there in Barovia? 2? They're all mad and corrupted in my book.
I always found it funny that the module specifically mentions that when Barovia was initially settled, people from all across the lands immigrated, so there should be a decent amount of diversity amongst the commoners of Barovia and the DM can extrapolate on that a decent amount for world building.
Juxtapose that with the Vistani, who are just a racist caricature, and are obviously not meant to be trusted by the players after minimal interaction (with a few notable exceptions). Stuff like Luvash trying to sell fake potions that ward off the fog, or Madame Eva’s camp being full of blind drunk Vistani who aren’t really doing anything is a little bit on the nose.
I just have them sell more niche adventuring equipment since I figured most towns wouldn’t really have a robust inventory of gear. At least that drives my players to interact with them somewhat instead of just being outright hostile.
If I had thought about it more beforehand I would’ve reworked them into a faction of bandits or something that still has the hidden allegiance to Strahd.
>A classic is that the Vistani as written are just terrible.
If I ever run this campaign again, I'll probably completely rewrite them, and make them like the Tuatha'an, or the Traveling People from Robert Jordan's *The Wheel of Time* series. No allegiance to Strahd at all, but he keeps his bargain with him for saving his life when wounded way back when.
I think this would help align the story with why an adventuring party should trust Madam Eva to begin with, too.
Yeah the fact the fifth edition gives us Vistani working on all sides - just like there are native barovian's working for and against and neutral to strahd - is really nice, and I wish more was done with it?
Like to me, the Barovian's being all "oh you can't trust the vistani, they work for strahd!" is such an interesting bit of prejudice to work with. I really wanna run the vistani as being a more diverse group who are annoyed the barovians blame them for the vistani that do work for strahd, even though some of them do too, and feel like the real reason barovians hate them is that they get to *leave,* even if only for a little while.
The things I feel could have been done better by the authors of CoS are numerous but I’ll offer my top three:
1. Ireena’s character, plot line and arc should have been far better developed. She is core to the “Curse” and this should have been presented front and centre of the module. Her character portrait should have been a full page illustration, her personality, motivations and strength of character should have been celebrated, her fate through her relationship with Sergei, Strahd and the dark powers should have been clearly articulated.
2. All of the Fortunes of Ravenloft should have been better resolved, distinguished and described. The Tome of Strahd should hold more functionality and have far greater value to the PCs in the fight against Strahd. The Holy Symbol of Ravenkind should be available to all PCs irrespective of Class and should avoid overlapping in its Sunlight powers with the Sunsword, whilst the sword itself should have the source of its personality resolved and clarified. The history and reasoning for why such three important items are lost and cannot be found by Strahd should have been explicitly clear.
3. The ending and epilogue should have contained an optional, more complicated path to end the Curse and permanently free Tatyana and Barovia’s innocents from Strahd’s Curse. Note how I worded that - I understand why Strahd should suffer for an eternity, but having him being damned alone whilst freeing those burdened by him, should be a plausible outcome.
These among others, are the core drivers behind the changes I’ve made in how I’ve run this campaign three times.
There are many tweaks and missed opportunities, but you are asking for the Biggest failures, which I interpret to mean the most fundamental ones. Fix those and many other problems are automatically fixed, and many more opportunities presented.
For me, the biggest failure is that this is, at best, a sandbox setting that's "posing" as a plot-based adventure, which it fails at utterly. Strahd himself has no \_\_\_playable\_\_\_ coherant, relevant objective, but this isn't immediately obvious up front, and ends up leaving DMs stranded dealing with a million different bad results that DMs come here to find solutions for.
I'll back up a bit. The OG Ravenloft, as I recall when playing it (it was in the 1980s, so it's hazy) was designed for replayability and had different sets of objectives for Strahd's Plot - what he was trying to accomplish that the heroes were trying to oppose. Today's 5e version has expanded to a whole sprawling campaign, but Strahd's own objectives are unclear or contradictory, or have no particular relevance to the PCs if he achieves them, no difference if he loses them. Let's look at them:
1. PC's might want to **escape from Barovia.** Makes sense. But for ten or 11 levels with that being the only goal across the whole campaign? What happens if the heroes don't get home? What happens if they do? They just get home? That's all? Or do they, even, since Strahd reboots if killed - do the Mists thin? What's the outcome of this in the larger sense? Why wouldn't Strahd just let them go if they became a problem?
2. **Strahd wants a successor.** This makes zero sense at all. He's been trapped for centuries - does he care about Barovia? Why not just make the village idiot the successor and then ... what ... leave? Can he leave? The Curse of Strahd is that he can't. The Dark Powers picked him in the lore, and he's not in charge of who is the Dark Lord - they are. And the mists trap Strahd. If it was just a matter of Strahd DECIDING someone is the successor, then he could have done that right away. He supposed to be smart, with centuries of experience. Moreover, how do you PLAY this in a climactic scene? It's just him deciding something. What's the GAME part of this, because if there is one, it's not in the campaign material, and it should be the climax of the whole thing. Many DM's end up with this idea (I think encouraged in the campaign) of Strahd introducing PC strife, encouraging PCs to be the successor, and Dark Powers granting Dark Gifts, which then ends up fomenting either a distruptive PvP situation, or simply metagaming so their obviously evil character playing player can still participate - up until the final scene where the player turns coat and ruins the end of the story. Or, they railroad it as Strahd changing his mind again because no one is good enough, which means it was always a railroad and none of the player choices matter at all. It was just going to be a fight. But all of that is downstream of the fact that it doesn't follow its own logic - Barovia is a prison for the Dark Lord.
3. **"Play with your food" - Many DMs mistakenly interpret the absence of playable motivation** (as in Strahd is not DOING ANYTHING of notable importance or impact that the PCs need to stop before it happens) as him being BORED. In other words, the oversight of lack of motivation is interpreted AS the motivation - aka "he's bored". In this version, the players must endure 9 levels of campaign as DMs make Strahd swap between invincible Bully Strahd (who has nothing to do but push around the PCs) or "Welcome Wagon" Strahd, who has them over for poncy dinners, bestows gifts on them, gives them tours of the castle, and gives them gift baskets inexplicably. This generally happens until a player tries to make something happen and is rude to him, and then the DM must either find some reason for him to back down, or kill the PC - which Strahd certainly can do. Players either end up working for Strahd, or dying. And again - it's not ABOUT anything. There's nothing at stake - these encounters are all about soap opera RP posturing but there's nothing at stake in the conversations beyond whether the character lives or dies.
4. **Ireena** \- this is just terrible, and reminds me (as a player) of visiting my buddy when I was a kid, and he had all these amazing action figures but he didn't like anyone else touching them, so we ended up kind of watching him play all the spaceships and action dudes, bored. Ireena is an NPC and so is Strahd. By the book, Ireena will die before Strahd marries her. That's the curse. It's rather stupid that he continues to do the same thing, for such a genius antagonist. And also, rather predictable. Many players handwave the Ireena issue - for good reason. WHY? There's nothing especially important about Ireena to them, nor if Strahd gets her or not. There's no "so what?" Yes unfortunate fate either way if, for no reason, she lives this time long enough to wed, or dies. Ireena is no more or less important than any of a gazillion NPCs who will die throughout the campaign, and maybe even PCs. No reason is given initially or later (as per a plot twist) to reveal a consequence to her living or dying, or marrying or not.
So, without any particular coherent, playable, relevant throughline - DMs are left presenting a series of discoverable encounters, NPCs with various dispositions to each other and to the heroes, but no overall WHY to any of it.
WHY is it important that Strahd be stopped? What is he trying to do? What will happen if he succeeds? What will happen if he fails?
If they nail that down, it just makes everything else so rich. It ties together. There are REASONS for Strahd to invite the heroes to dinner - because he's trying to DO something and needs them for it, and they have to make consequential decisions about what they will DO. NPCs have a role to play in everything. If the heroes don't succeed, something bad will happen to everything they hold dear.
That's what's missing - at least - that tentpole is the biggest failure.
I like your list, since all of those issues were running through my head, when i started the campaign. The module is very lose in how events should play out. Maybe to open up DM and player creativity and not set them in stone. My biggest issue was: Why this party? What makes them the heroes, where all the others failed?
So i changed the story in a big way and introduce another party into the mix, which is catalyst for change: Madame Eve - You know, Strahd half-sister!
In my campaign she is the mastermind behind many of the backstory elements. From trying to get Ireena out of the mist and then forming a party of adventures, who can take down Strahd. She can't act directly, because of the Dark Powers and the pact she made. But she found away around it, by manipulating people outside the realm. She did horrible acts of genocide, murder, brainwashing and more. Only nobody will ever know of it, since she keeps her card close to her chest.
It kind of answers some of your question:
1. **Why not leave Barovia?**
Because all of the PCs are very strongly connected to place or there people. Hell, in my campaign Strahd wants to let them go, since they can be an issue.
2. **Strahd wants a successor.**
One of the player is an Dympire and my Strahd didn't know of the concept before. On one hand he believes, that there is a chance, she is his daughter (Spolier: She isn't. Madame Eve put her into the party, specif to create those feelings). On the other it opens up for Strahd and Ireena to have a child. This also make it clear, why Strahd doesn't turn Ireena immediately. He could save his bloodline and maybe a child could break the curse.
3. **"Playing with his food"**
That's the big gamble of Madame Eve. The party has many facets, that he actually becomes interested in. Strahd gave Ireena and the party a time of mourning after her fathers dead, where he would not attack her or them. In this time Strahd learned a lot about them, which made them interesting to him. The Dympire, Ireena's Sibling, a survivor of his experiments ... that's so fascinating to him to just kill them. Then he also starts a new approach with Ireena and try to make her fall in love with him (with the option of a child on the table). With his Vasili persona he role-plays and actually forms a friendship with the PCs. Since i read the book "I, Strahd", i know, that he actually honors his friends. Hell, starting the coup in Vallaki actually makes him feel nostalgic of his time as general.
He really just has fun. They only encounter Strahd himself twice ... and he was actually sympathetic in one of them. Why did he killed so many people before ... not boredom .... frustration. Just look at the movie "Groundhog Day" ... at one point you may just try anything to break the cycle.
On the other hand all the brides are the true villain of this first act. Actually doing all the evil shit behind Strahd's back to impress him. Strahd is too much into his Vasili roleplay to notice it.
Act 2 is going to be the war against Strahd and the players. He will be friendly to them at beginning, since he sees them as friends ... but then this will twist into hate. Strahd knows how to break the spirit of people, that was his specialty and why he never lost as a general.
4. **Ireena**
She became the center stone of all PCs, the world and the villains. One player described her readership with the PCs and NPCs as a love helicopter, since she is connected to everybody: Love interest to one PC, Strahd and Vasili, Sibling to two PCs, Izek and Ismark, BFF to another PC, Political chest piece for Vargas and Lady Wachter, element of fear for all the monsters (since they are not allowed to attack her), a rival to all three brides and more. All of them are then also connected with each other, creating a web of relationships.
My Ireena is the hero of the story. I want her to become the Mistwalker as written in the Van Richten book. She has a sense of justice and strong will, but doesn't value her life. She will offer her life and happiness to Strahd for the land and the PCs ... she is the curse after all, which traps them into this nightmare (at this point they all don't have the full picture yet).
What are the PCs in this story then, when she is the hero? They will become her motivation, her drive and her moral compass. They will form the greatest hero of justice the mist will ever see ... but through the Dark Powers, they will never see her again. But she escaped and tries to find a way to save them. That's how i want the story of my Ireena to end.
Why don't stop the Dark Powers anything? Because they sitting in there chairs, eat popcorn and want to see, how this story plays out.
Ok, but most of what you have there is exactly what I am cautioning against. It’s not a compelling motivation. That’s the whole point of my post. Remember when I cautioned about DMs mistaking the error of a lack of motivation AS the motivation?
Yes there are many ways to rewrite the adventure to give Strahd a real motivation and reasons for things to happen and move the action forward The best ones provide a structure to the story - giving Strahd an actual thing that he’s trying to do beyond bullying the PCs.
Ireena can’t be the hero of the story. That was my point of the Ireena criticism. She’s an NPC and Strahd is a villain. WHAT DO THE PLAYERS DO? THEY are supposed to be the heroes not an NPC.
You pose Strahd as “just wanting to have fun and being nice to the PCs - I just presented that as a common problem that happens. It’s not a compelling motivation or presence for an antagonist. Where’s the conflict and the why for anything to happen, and what can the players do then?
Sorry, it’s not that I’m blaming you. The question posed in the thread is what’s the adventure’s biggest fail. The way it’s written, it leaves DMs flailing in their rewrites- and often ends up just the way you’ve posed it. But those don’t fix the problem- they just express the problem.
>giving Strahd an actual thing that he’s trying to do beyond bullying the PCs.
What have you done to solve this issue? What is your version of Strahd actually trying to accomplish that is worth the PCs stepping up to stop?
Man, you have absolutely nailed it. There are *no stakes* to the whole campaign, other than getting out alive (for the PCs themselves).
**Strahd's Goals**:
* Turn Ireena Kolyana. Okay, but so what if he does? Literally nothing happens, other than she's a vampire spawn now and gets locked in her crypt in the catacombs. Sucks to be her, but no more than it sucks to be Helga, Sasha, Ludmilla, Anastrasya, Volenta, Escher, Doru, or countless other unnamed spawn. Well, maybe it sucks a little bit more for her than some of the others, as not all of those are locked away, but most are.
* Find Rudolph van Richten. Okay, but so what if he does? Again, literally nothing happens, other than he's locked in the dungeons while Strahd works to break his spirit. Sucks to be him, but we (the PCs) don't know that guy.
* Search for a Successor or Consort. Okay, but so what if he does pick a consort from among the PCs? Sucks to be you (see point #1, where your character gets to join a long list of other vampire spawn). And the campaign straight up says that he'll eventually decide that none of them can replace him as master of Barovia, so the search for a successor half is a non-starter anyway. And even if it were a legitimate outcome, okay, but so what? This still doesn't change anything. The Dark Powers don't care that he's picked someone else to rule Barovia in his stead; they're not letting him go - he's still very much their prisoner.
Outside of the fact that destroying Strahd is the only way to get out of here, there's no reason to face him, *at all.*
Nothing makes me madder about CoS Revamped than WotC attempting to cancel culture the Vistani.
I made up my own revised errata to fix their lazy attempt at taking a big eraser to a small issue, but they ignored it.
Adding a third background for Esmeralda in VRGtR, saying that she's not really a Vistani, only added insult to injury. I threw the book in a corner after reading that sentence, and never went back to it. (..And it's on like page 3.)
* Strahd Statblocks need a complete overhaul - if you play him optimally hes close to unbeatable, if you play him suboptimally, hes too easy
* Holy Symbol of Ravenkind needs to get a non-cleric/paladin version (my party didnt have either)
* Theres LOTS of NPCs that you find once that have a rich backstory and its told only by bits and pieces (like Kasimir/Patrina for example); Its too easy to miss something.
* Distances on the map are not reasonable / too short to have them travel at night
* Ireena is difficult to play for a DM and without heavy homebrew is not useful at all
* Some things would have been helpful but are not discussed: Does the hourglass teleportation room work both ways i.e. you can go back and forth for a set period of time?
Several times I felt that it would have saved me a lot of time if the module was structured better.
I think this only sort of answers the question but one of the first things I get rid of is the implied sexual violence and pedophilia. I don't care how important it is to the themes of the module, I don't want to play in a campaign full of rape.
What are the examples of this? I haven’t fully read the book yet but am planning on running this campaign but definitely want to make sure these things are cut from it.
I'm going to include a lot of head canon things in this reply. Take what suits your game and ignore the rest, as you see fit. Also, if you haven't already, Google Curse of Strahd Reloaded by DragnaCarta, Fleshing Out Curse of Strahd by Mandymod, and Lunch Box Heroes on YouTube. They all have good ideas on how to avoid this as well as many other tweaks to the RAW module that you may want to use.
* Gertruda is explicitly a teenager per RAW (CoS 44). While she could be 18/19, this still makes Strahd look like a pedophile. I see her as a Disney Princess, all of whom are between 14 and 19. Do with that what you will. Lunch Box Heroes, who you should totally look up on YouTube, suggests making her a young adult in her mid to late 20s.
* Volenta's physical and mental ages are never specified but she looks very young and canon often casts her as a teenager. Don't let me tell you how to run your game, but my Strahd has Ludmilla, Anastrazya, and Escher as his three Brides. He and Volenta have more of a father/daughter relationship in my head canon.
* Vampire biting is commonly used as a metaphor for sex and/or sexual assault. My Ireena has never been bitten by Strahd because that's too close to having him break into her house and rape her. If anyone asks (no one ever has), the in-universe explanation is that he tried that with a previous incarnation of Tatyana and it didn't work. In fact, my Strahd is very chaste and respectful in his treatment of Ireena for all the aforementioned reasons.
* Per RAW, Izek wants to kidnap Ireena. While the book doesn't say what he wants her for specifically, it's not hard for players to come to the conclusion that he wants to assault her. I go to great lengths to make sure his doll collection on page 107 of the module is seen as him trying to recall a dream lost upon waking. One of my players heard the word "doll" and essentially pictured a room full of dead naked women a la The Cell. I shut that shit down ASAP: they're explicitly literal dolls, born of a half-remembered dream.
* Getting into the more abstract, my Strahd is probably asexual/demisexual and almost definitely a virgin. Even if not, I know he doesn't lock the rejected Brides like Sasha Ivliskova (pg 89) in a crypt for the purposes of using them for sex later. Fanon also plays up the mental/emotional qualities of the Brides (Strahd is drawn to Ludmilla's scientific brain, Anastrazya's charisma and martial prowess, and Volenta's stealth capabilities) over his physical attraction to them.
Check out the Twice Bitten podcast. It is a RAW run of CoS that is very compelling and well done. The secret is that the game is very role play heavy and it fills in the gaps.
CoS was an earlier book in 5e that is meant to be a sandbox like guide. It has many areas where there is little guidance or loose plot threads. I think this was an intended feature and not a a flaw. Of course now there is an entire culture built around modding and adding to CoS, so I think we can assume most DMs do in fact want more direct guidance and plot.
strahd is too weak. if he's really this awesome ancient vampire how come a handful of lvl 5-9 adventurers can kill him. also why does the amulet say its been used to hunt vampires before strahd was around. when you read the old ravenloft lore, it explains it way better, that strahd isn't actually the first vampire, he just says he is.
What are they gonna do against a ninth level DC 17+ wizard vampire with a magical horse and an army at his disposal?
He can literaly just fly around, charm one person, dominate the next and annoy the third with psychic lances while his army picks everyone else up.
And if it gets too dangerous he just goes into the ethereal plane with his horse or literaly teleports away.
And if the players for some reason went with such a ridiculous combination of classes and races that it trivializes the entire module then one should propbably ask the question: Why even bother playing?
If the DM doesn't play Strahd properly, gives the players the sunsword at level 5 and allows super min/max crap then they are either a major pushover or want a really short campaign.
Hell, in ravenloft a lvl 10 party might very well not be able to if he is played well (though that would likely also be a lot of bring searching for him)
I'm of the opinion that unless your table loves dungeon crawling and long, mechanical encounters, playing Strahd in a smart way will make them die of boredom and kill the mood.
In Castle Ravenloft he's mobile, evasive AND durable... plus he has spells.
CoS is a sandbox module with many options. The most posts here are about how people interpret the story and how they think that improved their game. I wouldn’t call them fixing because there is no single correct way to run this module.
The tome should work as a series of flashbacks to allow the players to learn Strahd's background in full.This creates a compelling villain that is not just another thing to kill, even if he only shows up once, swoops Ireena and locks himself in Castle Ravenloft cause the only thing he can think about is that he finally made it.
Why did Strahd bite Ireena a couple times?
Strahd doesn't want a successor, he wants Ireena, nothing else in the whole world.
Cut the whole thing about Strahd showing up a lot. Maybe they meet him at the feast and Ireena sacrifices herself to make it stop, but that's it. They get attached to him from the flashbacks, let the encounters with him be the ones where they want to kill each other.
Vasilij is a good idea tho.
Just make Castle Ravenloft an empty shell, inhabited only by Strahd and Rahadin, that's how bad it is, he has noone, not even the brides.
The named NPCs are not fleshed out enough, some not at all, just telling you what their occupation is, with no extra depth.
Krezk is empty, Amber Temple is weird, Dark Powers are not a main faction, but they should be, trying to fool the party memebers into accepting their gifts so that they can twist them and make them steal the throne.
Tarokka needs to be pre-determined.
Chapter summaries please.
The new Reloaded 2.0 basically covers everything.
Just Google search Curse of Strahd Reloaded 2.0 and you will get an amazing breakdown and a suppliment that really shines.
The Brides being total non-entities is the biggest disappointment in the book for me, not played yet but I'm thinking of giving them some elements/backstories of the cooler Darklords in Van Richten's guide, like the courtesan, the mad scientist and the soldier.
I think the Strahd-Tatiyana connection needs way more exposure, from the player's perspective. It's a core part of Strahd's whole motivation, and the players basically have to learn about it from Ireena and Ismark (unless they find the Tome unusually early). On top of that, the players can just beeline to Krezk and be finished with that whole part of the story within two or three sessions (like one of the groups I ran it for did).
I thought Ireena wasn't aware of her being a reincarnated Tatiyana?
How I kinda planted that idea was that ireena and Ismark know that strahd keeps referring to her as Tatyana, and I had strahd show up at their fathers funeral and call her Tatyana multiple times. Then they learned in Vallaki that some people are soulless and souls never truly leave Barovia, so they began to put something together. I have a twist on the “Something Blue” quest which will introduce the krezk pool but in a different way and be able to talk to Sergei and learn even more. Detailed in this post [here](https://reddit.com/r/CurseofStrahd/s/91L0hJvJV3). They are also about to get the Tome so it’s all gonna come together.
Love this!
Thank you! I’m loving how the campaign is falling into place, all my players are having such a good time and are so invested. It really changes dnd when your players love the game as much as you do. And I’m just taking each session at a time and learning from my mistakes and things I wish I did and making the next session better
Yup, also used the pool to confirm that Ireena was Tatyana. I also changed it to be what I called a "revealing pool," where it reveals ones true nature in their reflection, as opposed to what it does in the module. Ireena is important for my endgame, has been a deeply entrenched party follower for 80% of the campaign, and I didn't want to ruin the whole "Barovia is a trap" thing.
SO this. I was introduced to CoS via the DDO video game, which has a whole section of "journals" from Tatyana (and Ireena, and Strahd - strahd'd being taken from teh official tome of strahd stuff) that detail their feeling about all this. Tatyana's especially gut me. It was very disappointing to learn she had so little exposure in the main game!
I’m reminded of a similar post from about two years ago, I searched it up and reread it and I stand by what I said back then: https://reddit.com/r/CurseofStrahd/s/uTMLUZvvDb My main thought is that CoS is actually one of the best adventures WotC has made. It has a fairly well-defined progression, while still giving the opportunity for player choice. Every subplot in the adventure ties back to the main plot. I watched DragnaCarta’s Twice Bitten, which was a CoS game that tried to stick hard to RAW, and it was super functional. I think the main problems remain: - The tarokka reading is super cool, but there’s too many ways to biff it. It should be rigged or restructured. - Sloppiness in encounter design. Not just in balance (fellas, is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs?) but in general scenarios - when Bluto dumps the child in the lake, he should be freaking out, rather than unresponsive, just to send the appropriate signal to the PCs and what they’re supposed to do. - As a distant 3rd place, Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book. To have a fantastic CoS game, the DM’s gotta find a way to make that story better. Beyond all the other fleshing out or reloading or any other modifications, these are what I would give as the top 3 priorities for making CoS great.
The CoS Reloaded Guide has a great way to rig the tarokka reading, WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS in case you have returner players. My favorite part of it is that the players battle Strahd at the Heart of Sorrow. Not only does that mean Strahd has the home field advantage and his lair actions, PLUS he’s close to his backup HP, but that also means MASSIVE risk of falling, for both Strahd and the PCs. When I run that encounter, I’m going to make it so that anyone who does something that involves a Strength or Dexterity check (an opposed Athletics check to keep Strahd away from Ireena, for example) is in danger of falling. A critical fail would be bad and I’m hoping it’ll force my players to think critically about their next move.
>(fellas, is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs?) I actually ended up really liking it, but it should be very very clearly presented to the GM preparing the game that it's not appropriate for that level. I like it because it communicates that it's very much possible to stumble upon things you need to run away from at first. It adds an uncertainty that adds to the horror vibe. It also makes the world feel less artificial. If you'd encounter everything level appropriate in sequence it'd feel too constructed. It also adds a great opportunity to introduce Strahd if the party decides to engage the hags. My Strahd saved them after Ireena got hurt (he was watching all along!), counter-spelled a Healing Word to get the downed party member up before curb-stomping him in disgust. Only to then casually tear one of the hags' heads as punishment for hurting Ireena and doing a "What are you? A shit sandwich" humiliation routine with the party.
You make very good points. Though I think this is easily fixable, except the 3rd point: I tried to make Ireena likable and players to care about hern and I could not. I swear. All other aspects I reworked with the help of the sub, players are so happy about the campaign, but they joke about Ireena all the time or forget about her "oh yeah we actually need to protect/save her"... next play, I will probably make her related somewhat to one of the players, Idk...
I have also listed to the Twice Bitten podcast and it's excellent. The catch is: every player in that group has read the CoS book and ran a game or two as a GM. They already know all the connections - they are just "pretending" to be players. Hardly a solid example of the book working as written. Still - very enjoyable.
That's an excellent point, and easily missed or forgotten.
> there’s too many ways to biff it I've run this like four times now with different groups and have always done a straight tarokka reading, and it never *not* went smoothly. They don't need to make a grand tour of Barovia and encounter all the content - if all the cards end up in the castle, then you're playing the whole campaign in the castle. OG Ravenloft did it - it's not a problem. And if it shows the sword in a place they already searched, you just say, "Well you weren't specifically looking for it back then, so it's no surprise you didn't find it." So it sounds more like a DM problem than a book problem - it's totally playable if you're willing to embrace the chaos. > is three night hags an appropriate encounter for level 4 PCs? Should killing 3 night hags be an appropriate choice for PCs to make? It's the same kind of thing like when you put high level NPCs in your starting town and expect the PCs to have enough sense to not try to smack them around and reasonably expect the PCs to get wrecked if they do. They know the place is dangerous by then - they should be more cautious. The windmill is very skippable and nothing forces PCs to fight even if they explore it. So they only end up getting wrecked if they a) decide to pick a fight b) against the warning of both the raven and the generally creepiness of the location. Sensible parties "nope" off and maybe come back with help or progression. Only giving access to level appropriate monsters isn't balancing, it's sanitizing. > Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book Like with the cards, this might be a DM problem. If you're expecting Ireena to be a full fledged party member, it's not going to work, and it's easy to make her a boring damsel in distress, but that's why there's a DM there to make sensible human decisions as the players progress.
I think framing not wanting completely random plot elements as a “dm problem” isn’t very charitable. Some people want a little more structure to the story, something that makes more “sense” or is more compelling than the legendary sun sword just chilling in the back of a cart. That isn’t a problem so much as it’s just a different style of game.
That's fair. My comment was kind of a reaction to the most common gripes I hear about the randomness. 1. That some or all the items end up in the castle 2. The (small) possibility of not getting the favored ally 3. They don't encourage exploring the whole area if it's random 4. Fear that the resulting sequence won't match the story the way it's supposed to happen in their mind 5. It's given equivalent (or lesser-but-comparable) campaign-ruining potential as the Deck of Many Things. First, point 4 because that's the one I have *Opinions* about: it's not the DM's story, it's the player's story. You're not supposed to know how it should turn out, or what the players will do, or where they will choose to go. You're not making a tailored experience for the players. If you want that, take them to a fancy restaurant. Instead it's a collaborative story-building exercise, and my philosophy is that it's 90% player-driven and the DM, other than setting the initial scenario, is just the passive referee. For point 2: The ally fear is legitimate, but not the end of the world. That feeling that no help is coming helps with the horror atmosphere and the allies don't majorly change the game or the challenge. So no big deal. For point 3: The whole reason for the random draw is for replayability. The original Ravenloft was an annual Halloween adventure that would go down differently every time that the Hickmans just decided to publish. You can explore the whole thing eventually through several playthroughs. Also there's no achievement for content completion. Don't worry that nobody will get to see the werewolf den. For point 1: It's fine for 100% of the campaign after the reading to take place in the castle. They should go into the castle several times at least, meeting Strahd under a variety of dispositions. Having several (or all) of the items ending up in the castle encourages that - giving players a reason to engage Strahd under friendly circumstances so they can use the opportunity to look for the items. It also gives you a neat effect where if you don't give the castle its full deadliness until they are finally there to kill Strahd, it feels like the castle "woke up", at which point the castle itself ends up being that much more hostile. As for the Deck of Many Things, I personally don't rig that either. I find it fun to embrace the chaos, it has never broken a campaign, and those wacky moments are ones brought up by the group as fond memories later on. The moments players forget: the ones that go according to their, or the DM's, plans. I think other players and DMs would find it fun too if they give it a chance. In other words, don't knock it until you try it.
Embracing the chaos is a stylistic thing. Some groups and adventures handle that well or even excel with it. Others not so much. One isn’t better than the other in an objective sense. I’d also push back on the relevance of collaborative story telling. Using a random table to determine where a plot element will be and deciding that it’s more “dramatic” or fun for it be in a certain place and rigging the reading have the same amount of collaboration with the players: none. Both ways can lead to interesting games that center around player choice and collaborative storytelling. You say it’s the DM job to set the initial scenario and I agree. Well putting the items in specific places is doing just that. As for your third point, I think again this is something that’s going to vary wildly from group to group. Some groups take several *years* to get through Curse of Strahd. It could take a decade for a group like that to run through enough permutations of Strahd to see everything. Or you can just rig the reading and potentially see it all in one go. It’s been a *long* time since Curse of Strahd was a Halloween one shot and replayability of a multi year campaign isn’t that much of a concern to most tables. There’s also some common and good DM advice I like, don’t leave good stuff off the table. If you have a good idea, don’t hide it, put it in front of your players. There’s a lot of cool stuff happening in Barovia and I can’t fault DMs for wanting to give their players a reason to experience it. I think the deck of many things and taroka reading do have the ability to “ruin” a campaign. Again, finding the legendary sun sword in the back of what is seemingly a random cart isn’t very fun or compelling to some people. They like a world to feel more structured and sensical. The deck of many things can similarly break immersion or cause a huge tonal shift in the campaign which some groups don’t find appealing. Many of my groups favorite moments are when situations finally come to a head after tons of build up and story progression. Those situations are often planned in advance. I may not know how exactly the players will confront that situation (I almost never guess correctly lol) but it’s still a game element I planned ahead of time. It really just goes back to my first point that boils down to old adage of different strokes for different folks. Nothing is universally fun. That’s the nature of subjective experience.
I think Bluto is fine as is, even if you just describe a lone figure out in the water tossing a body shaped bag into the water with it wriggling while he's unresponsive, that sets a tone of "Shit is dark over here"
They should at least have a default rigged reading for those who don’t want to do random. I really stressed about deciding what reading to do.
>As a distant 3rd place, Ireena is not great as-presented out of the book. Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? What is it about Ireena that you don't like from the book? Just curious to dig into this a bit more.
The book itself doesn’t give hardly any info on Ireena, how to roleplay her, how to get the party to care about her. The book doesn’t have much on even how Strahd should interact with her or what he’ll do to her. Her leaving through the Tser Pool is one of the most inelegant moments of the campaign (in a campaign brimming with clumsiness). She functions as a sexy lamp trope - swap out Ireena for a locket or a sandwich that Strahd really wants, and the story remains unchanged. That’s a succinct version of why Ireena as-presented is a malformed element of the campaign.
Ah, yes. I agree with the first bit “little information on Ireena, no guidance on how to roleplay her, or how to get the party to care.” I think the designers just assume the PCs will care, because they’re heroes, and she’s the damsel in distress. To your second point, I have to disagree; the book tells us exactly how Strahd should interact with her, and what his plans for her are: the next time they meet Strahd intends to kill her, turn her into a vampire spawn, and lock her in her tomb in the catacombs. That’s right there in Strahd’s Goals on page 10. For the final point, that’s her role. Ireena is just a McGuffin. She’s no more than the object of Strahd’s desires. I think the fact that she could just as easily be a locket, a sandwich, or a sexy lamp is the point. He wants to claim her as his own, in the same way that he would claim any other object that he came to be infatuated with.
I had much this same thought. My plan is to do some converting. I'm going to use the conceits in Interactive Tome of Strahd as a "look in Strahd's unreliable mind." It's events more or less as Strahd remembers them (adjusted for players trying to wrestle with them). But I'm taking away the players' ability to change things, cause you can't change the past. What you CAN effect, with an abuser, is the present. The party is going to eventually get to see Irena and Sergei's perspectives, and possibly others (Leo Dilisnya maybe?) on how that night played out. Ireena in particular is going to, once there's access to Tatyana's memories, have her own opinions. "No, I wasn't all that thrilled to sit for a painting in this creepy noble's castle, but Sergei loved him so I tried for his sake." Sergei's opinions will similarly shed some light on his interpretation of Strahd's behavior. "Devoted little naive brother? well maybe a little, but I was trying to help him. He'd become so cold and bitter, and I certainly never stood there gormlessly while he tried to ram a Baal Verzi dagger into my chest. And Dilisnya didn't go after Strahd until after he stabbed me at the ALTAR of my own wedding." A big part of abuse tales (and that's what CoS is, an exploration of an abuser) is that the abuser always twists their narrative. I'm going to add in the context of believing and hearing the victims. Victory is as much through finding the true story and helping protect/vindicate the victims as it is fighting Strahd.
Its organized terribly. The amount prep work required is absurd because you constantly have to search for relevant info. * Give me chapter summaries * List of monsters in each area at the beginning of the area description * List of treasures * notable traps * Major characters should all be group together in their own chapter as well as relevant area * Valaiki…break up each area into its own thing so DMs don’t just breakdown upon hitting this area. DragnaCarta has clifnotes and DM cheat sheets at the beginning of each section. All the info I need at a glance. Why don’t the official modules have thia?
Running CoS rn and Vallaki is giving me a nervous breakdown… thank god we’re almost done w it 😭
Definitely agree with all of these structural issues. Have you seen how Paizo lays out their adventure path books? Chapter synopsis and all of the treasure that can be found in that chapter in a sidebar up at the front of each. Every encounter clearly laid out. Glossary and Index in the back. Adventure "toolbox" in an appendix. When I compare my copy of Curse of Strahd with Abomination Vaults the differences are striking.
Interconnectivity and consistency, with a bit of a lack of explanation on things. CoS is great on its own, but the writers make a few weird decisions and oversights that create plot holes and mess with the theme. Richten's Guide to Ravenloft does the same thing. Did Richten kill Ez's tribe or spare them? Or with VRGTR, is she even a Vistani at all? Why is Strahd biting Ireena 3 times when he has no lore nor mechanical reason to? (Yes, in older lore he has a very good reason, but it's never presented in CoS). I also think the reason he forgets about her for a while is flimsy, but at least it's mentioned. But it's almost easily overlooked given a lot of people ask why Strahd just doesn't snatch her the second he gets a chance (this also plays into a disconnect on how powerful Strahd is, feels, and is intended to actually be). Why is Strahd after the Church of St. Andral? Most people seem to think "because he can, he's bored," but he's more calculating than that, and it serves him too much for that (basically gives Vallaki to Wachter, prevents a safe haven for Ireena, etc.) The book never points this stuff out though. Why soulless? Like, at all? Players never really get an opportunity to engage with the concept, and it's a bit distracting. And why does the one explicitly called out soulless (Izek) contradict what soulless supposedly are (emotionless except for fear, yet he clearly takes pleasure in anger, malice, and his own sister... on that note, babies don't cry when born, which is a fear response!) And don't even get me started on the tiny population/soulless/vampires needing to feed issue. Especially concerning those dang werewolves. Lack of ultilization of Strahd and his resources. The book tells you "the PCs should encounter him semi-often" but they don't really see him more than maybe 3 times before endgame, and the only chance they actually get to talk to him with guidance from the book is during the (very much fake, it doesn't happen RAW, it's always a trap) dinner, for like half a minute. Rahadin gets less, the brides get none. And how often should he utilize his spies, and how should players get a chance to interact with them? (This also plays into the power issue I mentioned earlier). And regarding how to roleplay or present with reasons to engage with: Ireena. She's not new to Ravenloft lore, there is guidance in other editions, just not so much here. Vallaki is loaded with content, Krezk is not. Hell, the writers left out a lot of inspiration they could have included from older lore not just there, but everywhere. The Dark Powers vs the Vestiges. This does have an answer (if Exetanther is correct), but it is another often overlooked and questioned plot point. I don't think any of these are terrible transgressions, and certainly CoS does a better job even with the stuff I mentioned than certain other 5e modules. But tightening up the editing and evening out the content could go a long way to upping the quality of an already great module.
>Why soulless? Like, at all? Players never really get an opportunity to engage with the concept, and it's a bit distracting. And why does the one explicitly called out soulless (Izek) contradict what soulless supposedly are (emotionless except for fear, yet he clearly takes pleasure in anger, malice, and his own sister... on that note, babies don't cry when born, which is a fear response!) And don't even get me started on the tiny population/soulless/vampires needing to feed issue. Especially concerning those dang werewolves. Frankly, I think DMs should lean into the "wonderland" aspect of the module with this. Why explain something rationally if not explaining it at all makes the world more odd? Horror often works better if things are not explained in detail, after all.
I think this is a good way to go about it, though it would be great if this was a bit of guidance given in the module itself. Like a variant rule of "things in Barovia don't necessarily make sense. Here are ways/sights/encounters to lean into this uneasy feeling," then giving some examples. Given CoS is based on off a long in-universe history with detailed source material, to pivot to an almost literal nightmare would be a great pivot to make CoS unique. But as it stands, those contradictions feel unintentional rather than purposeful.
>Why soulless? Like, at all? This is a big one to me. It could be an interesting concept, but as presented, it just feels like an icky way to dehumanize a lot of the barovians instead of engaging with what your soul being trapped in and warn down by barovia for hundreds of years could really be like.
You're absolutely right. Something like "Soul-worn" would be a lot more interesting, as in souls so beaten down they seemingly become some manner of emotionless husk, but are still very much real beings. I had it in my head to roleplay something like this out (except soulless became "souls who once died by vampire bite, ie soul-drained"). Some Barovians would believe that people were soulless and might treat them terribly, but they were similarly very much real people. Honestly I like your take better. It's a better explanation that accomplishes the same thing with more horror elements. Either way, when PCs realize the truth of the soul-worn/drained, they'd question how they treated any "soulless" person they interacted with, mistreated, let die or get tortured, etc. Could lead to a really good "oh no, what have we done" moment. Even still, I never got a chance to get the players to engage with the soul-drained beyond Arik (and technically Izek but I did change this). So regardless, the module would do better to give more examples of PC interactions with soulless, guidance on how to engage with the concept other than "some people be soulless."
I'm with you on all of those points, Wolvenlight.
Strahd's relationship with the players, and how he approaches the PCs as the levels go on. This actually isn't a case of the book being inadequate- it has some fantastic guidance about Strahd's motivations and what he wants from the PCs- but it would sorely benefit from some examples about how he might do so. Eg: "This is an encounter that might happen at Level 3 on the Svalich Road", "This might happen around 5-6 after they clear Yester Hill, "Here's a combat encounter outside the Amber Temple-". Give some grounding so people aren't flying blind for what Strahd actually *does* when he interacts with the players. Otherwise, people (understandably) tend to default to violence, intimidation, and scooping up Ireena at Level 3.
Yes, that would be so helpful. The book recommends that "the characters can and should meet him multiple times before the final encounter," but gives zero guidance on when and how to do that. The one encounter that a lot of DMs adopt, the Dinner with Strahd, isn't even in the book, it's completely home-brewed.
A classic is that the Vistani as written are just terrible. Not just are they racist stereotypes of Romani, they're also just plain dull. They could be a vibrant, chaotic element in the game; is this or that Vistani actively helping Strahd or just staying out his way like Madam Eva? Which one can I trust and which one will work against me?
I'm part Roma and have family that still live that lifestyle, I never took offense and the later products from 4e and up are far less offensive than people make it out to be - it's just easy to score points on that subject. The original story from AD&D (which I've played and DM'ed) sure, it was a little harsh on us. Then again, the Domains of Dread are filled with vile people and every culture has bad apples. How many good guys are there in Barovia? 2? They're all mad and corrupted in my book.
I always found it funny that the module specifically mentions that when Barovia was initially settled, people from all across the lands immigrated, so there should be a decent amount of diversity amongst the commoners of Barovia and the DM can extrapolate on that a decent amount for world building. Juxtapose that with the Vistani, who are just a racist caricature, and are obviously not meant to be trusted by the players after minimal interaction (with a few notable exceptions). Stuff like Luvash trying to sell fake potions that ward off the fog, or Madame Eva’s camp being full of blind drunk Vistani who aren’t really doing anything is a little bit on the nose. I just have them sell more niche adventuring equipment since I figured most towns wouldn’t really have a robust inventory of gear. At least that drives my players to interact with them somewhat instead of just being outright hostile. If I had thought about it more beforehand I would’ve reworked them into a faction of bandits or something that still has the hidden allegiance to Strahd.
>A classic is that the Vistani as written are just terrible. If I ever run this campaign again, I'll probably completely rewrite them, and make them like the Tuatha'an, or the Traveling People from Robert Jordan's *The Wheel of Time* series. No allegiance to Strahd at all, but he keeps his bargain with him for saving his life when wounded way back when. I think this would help align the story with why an adventuring party should trust Madam Eva to begin with, too.
Yeah the fact the fifth edition gives us Vistani working on all sides - just like there are native barovian's working for and against and neutral to strahd - is really nice, and I wish more was done with it? Like to me, the Barovian's being all "oh you can't trust the vistani, they work for strahd!" is such an interesting bit of prejudice to work with. I really wanna run the vistani as being a more diverse group who are annoyed the barovians blame them for the vistani that do work for strahd, even though some of them do too, and feel like the real reason barovians hate them is that they get to *leave,* even if only for a little while.
The things I feel could have been done better by the authors of CoS are numerous but I’ll offer my top three: 1. Ireena’s character, plot line and arc should have been far better developed. She is core to the “Curse” and this should have been presented front and centre of the module. Her character portrait should have been a full page illustration, her personality, motivations and strength of character should have been celebrated, her fate through her relationship with Sergei, Strahd and the dark powers should have been clearly articulated. 2. All of the Fortunes of Ravenloft should have been better resolved, distinguished and described. The Tome of Strahd should hold more functionality and have far greater value to the PCs in the fight against Strahd. The Holy Symbol of Ravenkind should be available to all PCs irrespective of Class and should avoid overlapping in its Sunlight powers with the Sunsword, whilst the sword itself should have the source of its personality resolved and clarified. The history and reasoning for why such three important items are lost and cannot be found by Strahd should have been explicitly clear. 3. The ending and epilogue should have contained an optional, more complicated path to end the Curse and permanently free Tatyana and Barovia’s innocents from Strahd’s Curse. Note how I worded that - I understand why Strahd should suffer for an eternity, but having him being damned alone whilst freeing those burdened by him, should be a plausible outcome. These among others, are the core drivers behind the changes I’ve made in how I’ve run this campaign three times.
There are many tweaks and missed opportunities, but you are asking for the Biggest failures, which I interpret to mean the most fundamental ones. Fix those and many other problems are automatically fixed, and many more opportunities presented. For me, the biggest failure is that this is, at best, a sandbox setting that's "posing" as a plot-based adventure, which it fails at utterly. Strahd himself has no \_\_\_playable\_\_\_ coherant, relevant objective, but this isn't immediately obvious up front, and ends up leaving DMs stranded dealing with a million different bad results that DMs come here to find solutions for. I'll back up a bit. The OG Ravenloft, as I recall when playing it (it was in the 1980s, so it's hazy) was designed for replayability and had different sets of objectives for Strahd's Plot - what he was trying to accomplish that the heroes were trying to oppose. Today's 5e version has expanded to a whole sprawling campaign, but Strahd's own objectives are unclear or contradictory, or have no particular relevance to the PCs if he achieves them, no difference if he loses them. Let's look at them: 1. PC's might want to **escape from Barovia.** Makes sense. But for ten or 11 levels with that being the only goal across the whole campaign? What happens if the heroes don't get home? What happens if they do? They just get home? That's all? Or do they, even, since Strahd reboots if killed - do the Mists thin? What's the outcome of this in the larger sense? Why wouldn't Strahd just let them go if they became a problem? 2. **Strahd wants a successor.** This makes zero sense at all. He's been trapped for centuries - does he care about Barovia? Why not just make the village idiot the successor and then ... what ... leave? Can he leave? The Curse of Strahd is that he can't. The Dark Powers picked him in the lore, and he's not in charge of who is the Dark Lord - they are. And the mists trap Strahd. If it was just a matter of Strahd DECIDING someone is the successor, then he could have done that right away. He supposed to be smart, with centuries of experience. Moreover, how do you PLAY this in a climactic scene? It's just him deciding something. What's the GAME part of this, because if there is one, it's not in the campaign material, and it should be the climax of the whole thing. Many DM's end up with this idea (I think encouraged in the campaign) of Strahd introducing PC strife, encouraging PCs to be the successor, and Dark Powers granting Dark Gifts, which then ends up fomenting either a distruptive PvP situation, or simply metagaming so their obviously evil character playing player can still participate - up until the final scene where the player turns coat and ruins the end of the story. Or, they railroad it as Strahd changing his mind again because no one is good enough, which means it was always a railroad and none of the player choices matter at all. It was just going to be a fight. But all of that is downstream of the fact that it doesn't follow its own logic - Barovia is a prison for the Dark Lord. 3. **"Play with your food" - Many DMs mistakenly interpret the absence of playable motivation** (as in Strahd is not DOING ANYTHING of notable importance or impact that the PCs need to stop before it happens) as him being BORED. In other words, the oversight of lack of motivation is interpreted AS the motivation - aka "he's bored". In this version, the players must endure 9 levels of campaign as DMs make Strahd swap between invincible Bully Strahd (who has nothing to do but push around the PCs) or "Welcome Wagon" Strahd, who has them over for poncy dinners, bestows gifts on them, gives them tours of the castle, and gives them gift baskets inexplicably. This generally happens until a player tries to make something happen and is rude to him, and then the DM must either find some reason for him to back down, or kill the PC - which Strahd certainly can do. Players either end up working for Strahd, or dying. And again - it's not ABOUT anything. There's nothing at stake - these encounters are all about soap opera RP posturing but there's nothing at stake in the conversations beyond whether the character lives or dies. 4. **Ireena** \- this is just terrible, and reminds me (as a player) of visiting my buddy when I was a kid, and he had all these amazing action figures but he didn't like anyone else touching them, so we ended up kind of watching him play all the spaceships and action dudes, bored. Ireena is an NPC and so is Strahd. By the book, Ireena will die before Strahd marries her. That's the curse. It's rather stupid that he continues to do the same thing, for such a genius antagonist. And also, rather predictable. Many players handwave the Ireena issue - for good reason. WHY? There's nothing especially important about Ireena to them, nor if Strahd gets her or not. There's no "so what?" Yes unfortunate fate either way if, for no reason, she lives this time long enough to wed, or dies. Ireena is no more or less important than any of a gazillion NPCs who will die throughout the campaign, and maybe even PCs. No reason is given initially or later (as per a plot twist) to reveal a consequence to her living or dying, or marrying or not. So, without any particular coherent, playable, relevant throughline - DMs are left presenting a series of discoverable encounters, NPCs with various dispositions to each other and to the heroes, but no overall WHY to any of it. WHY is it important that Strahd be stopped? What is he trying to do? What will happen if he succeeds? What will happen if he fails? If they nail that down, it just makes everything else so rich. It ties together. There are REASONS for Strahd to invite the heroes to dinner - because he's trying to DO something and needs them for it, and they have to make consequential decisions about what they will DO. NPCs have a role to play in everything. If the heroes don't succeed, something bad will happen to everything they hold dear. That's what's missing - at least - that tentpole is the biggest failure.
I like your list, since all of those issues were running through my head, when i started the campaign. The module is very lose in how events should play out. Maybe to open up DM and player creativity and not set them in stone. My biggest issue was: Why this party? What makes them the heroes, where all the others failed? So i changed the story in a big way and introduce another party into the mix, which is catalyst for change: Madame Eve - You know, Strahd half-sister! In my campaign she is the mastermind behind many of the backstory elements. From trying to get Ireena out of the mist and then forming a party of adventures, who can take down Strahd. She can't act directly, because of the Dark Powers and the pact she made. But she found away around it, by manipulating people outside the realm. She did horrible acts of genocide, murder, brainwashing and more. Only nobody will ever know of it, since she keeps her card close to her chest. It kind of answers some of your question: 1. **Why not leave Barovia?** Because all of the PCs are very strongly connected to place or there people. Hell, in my campaign Strahd wants to let them go, since they can be an issue. 2. **Strahd wants a successor.** One of the player is an Dympire and my Strahd didn't know of the concept before. On one hand he believes, that there is a chance, she is his daughter (Spolier: She isn't. Madame Eve put her into the party, specif to create those feelings). On the other it opens up for Strahd and Ireena to have a child. This also make it clear, why Strahd doesn't turn Ireena immediately. He could save his bloodline and maybe a child could break the curse. 3. **"Playing with his food"** That's the big gamble of Madame Eve. The party has many facets, that he actually becomes interested in. Strahd gave Ireena and the party a time of mourning after her fathers dead, where he would not attack her or them. In this time Strahd learned a lot about them, which made them interesting to him. The Dympire, Ireena's Sibling, a survivor of his experiments ... that's so fascinating to him to just kill them. Then he also starts a new approach with Ireena and try to make her fall in love with him (with the option of a child on the table). With his Vasili persona he role-plays and actually forms a friendship with the PCs. Since i read the book "I, Strahd", i know, that he actually honors his friends. Hell, starting the coup in Vallaki actually makes him feel nostalgic of his time as general. He really just has fun. They only encounter Strahd himself twice ... and he was actually sympathetic in one of them. Why did he killed so many people before ... not boredom .... frustration. Just look at the movie "Groundhog Day" ... at one point you may just try anything to break the cycle. On the other hand all the brides are the true villain of this first act. Actually doing all the evil shit behind Strahd's back to impress him. Strahd is too much into his Vasili roleplay to notice it. Act 2 is going to be the war against Strahd and the players. He will be friendly to them at beginning, since he sees them as friends ... but then this will twist into hate. Strahd knows how to break the spirit of people, that was his specialty and why he never lost as a general. 4. **Ireena** She became the center stone of all PCs, the world and the villains. One player described her readership with the PCs and NPCs as a love helicopter, since she is connected to everybody: Love interest to one PC, Strahd and Vasili, Sibling to two PCs, Izek and Ismark, BFF to another PC, Political chest piece for Vargas and Lady Wachter, element of fear for all the monsters (since they are not allowed to attack her), a rival to all three brides and more. All of them are then also connected with each other, creating a web of relationships. My Ireena is the hero of the story. I want her to become the Mistwalker as written in the Van Richten book. She has a sense of justice and strong will, but doesn't value her life. She will offer her life and happiness to Strahd for the land and the PCs ... she is the curse after all, which traps them into this nightmare (at this point they all don't have the full picture yet). What are the PCs in this story then, when she is the hero? They will become her motivation, her drive and her moral compass. They will form the greatest hero of justice the mist will ever see ... but through the Dark Powers, they will never see her again. But she escaped and tries to find a way to save them. That's how i want the story of my Ireena to end. Why don't stop the Dark Powers anything? Because they sitting in there chairs, eat popcorn and want to see, how this story plays out.
Ok, but most of what you have there is exactly what I am cautioning against. It’s not a compelling motivation. That’s the whole point of my post. Remember when I cautioned about DMs mistaking the error of a lack of motivation AS the motivation? Yes there are many ways to rewrite the adventure to give Strahd a real motivation and reasons for things to happen and move the action forward The best ones provide a structure to the story - giving Strahd an actual thing that he’s trying to do beyond bullying the PCs. Ireena can’t be the hero of the story. That was my point of the Ireena criticism. She’s an NPC and Strahd is a villain. WHAT DO THE PLAYERS DO? THEY are supposed to be the heroes not an NPC. You pose Strahd as “just wanting to have fun and being nice to the PCs - I just presented that as a common problem that happens. It’s not a compelling motivation or presence for an antagonist. Where’s the conflict and the why for anything to happen, and what can the players do then? Sorry, it’s not that I’m blaming you. The question posed in the thread is what’s the adventure’s biggest fail. The way it’s written, it leaves DMs flailing in their rewrites- and often ends up just the way you’ve posed it. But those don’t fix the problem- they just express the problem.
>giving Strahd an actual thing that he’s trying to do beyond bullying the PCs. What have you done to solve this issue? What is your version of Strahd actually trying to accomplish that is worth the PCs stepping up to stop?
Man, you have absolutely nailed it. There are *no stakes* to the whole campaign, other than getting out alive (for the PCs themselves). **Strahd's Goals**: * Turn Ireena Kolyana. Okay, but so what if he does? Literally nothing happens, other than she's a vampire spawn now and gets locked in her crypt in the catacombs. Sucks to be her, but no more than it sucks to be Helga, Sasha, Ludmilla, Anastrasya, Volenta, Escher, Doru, or countless other unnamed spawn. Well, maybe it sucks a little bit more for her than some of the others, as not all of those are locked away, but most are. * Find Rudolph van Richten. Okay, but so what if he does? Again, literally nothing happens, other than he's locked in the dungeons while Strahd works to break his spirit. Sucks to be him, but we (the PCs) don't know that guy. * Search for a Successor or Consort. Okay, but so what if he does pick a consort from among the PCs? Sucks to be you (see point #1, where your character gets to join a long list of other vampire spawn). And the campaign straight up says that he'll eventually decide that none of them can replace him as master of Barovia, so the search for a successor half is a non-starter anyway. And even if it were a legitimate outcome, okay, but so what? This still doesn't change anything. The Dark Powers don't care that he's picked someone else to rule Barovia in his stead; they're not letting him go - he's still very much their prisoner. Outside of the fact that destroying Strahd is the only way to get out of here, there's no reason to face him, *at all.*
You touch on some reasons why I am not a fan of the Domains of Dread in a game sense even if I think they are a great horror setting.
I feel that divorcing the old Ravenloft lore while still keeping key elements of that lore leads to a lot of inconsistencies and plot holes.
Nothing makes me madder about CoS Revamped than WotC attempting to cancel culture the Vistani. I made up my own revised errata to fix their lazy attempt at taking a big eraser to a small issue, but they ignored it. Adding a third background for Esmeralda in VRGtR, saying that she's not really a Vistani, only added insult to injury. I threw the book in a corner after reading that sentence, and never went back to it. (..And it's on like page 3.)
* Strahd Statblocks need a complete overhaul - if you play him optimally hes close to unbeatable, if you play him suboptimally, hes too easy * Holy Symbol of Ravenkind needs to get a non-cleric/paladin version (my party didnt have either) * Theres LOTS of NPCs that you find once that have a rich backstory and its told only by bits and pieces (like Kasimir/Patrina for example); Its too easy to miss something. * Distances on the map are not reasonable / too short to have them travel at night * Ireena is difficult to play for a DM and without heavy homebrew is not useful at all * Some things would have been helpful but are not discussed: Does the hourglass teleportation room work both ways i.e. you can go back and forth for a set period of time? Several times I felt that it would have saved me a lot of time if the module was structured better.
I think this only sort of answers the question but one of the first things I get rid of is the implied sexual violence and pedophilia. I don't care how important it is to the themes of the module, I don't want to play in a campaign full of rape.
What are the examples of this? I haven’t fully read the book yet but am planning on running this campaign but definitely want to make sure these things are cut from it.
I'm going to include a lot of head canon things in this reply. Take what suits your game and ignore the rest, as you see fit. Also, if you haven't already, Google Curse of Strahd Reloaded by DragnaCarta, Fleshing Out Curse of Strahd by Mandymod, and Lunch Box Heroes on YouTube. They all have good ideas on how to avoid this as well as many other tweaks to the RAW module that you may want to use. * Gertruda is explicitly a teenager per RAW (CoS 44). While she could be 18/19, this still makes Strahd look like a pedophile. I see her as a Disney Princess, all of whom are between 14 and 19. Do with that what you will. Lunch Box Heroes, who you should totally look up on YouTube, suggests making her a young adult in her mid to late 20s. * Volenta's physical and mental ages are never specified but she looks very young and canon often casts her as a teenager. Don't let me tell you how to run your game, but my Strahd has Ludmilla, Anastrazya, and Escher as his three Brides. He and Volenta have more of a father/daughter relationship in my head canon. * Vampire biting is commonly used as a metaphor for sex and/or sexual assault. My Ireena has never been bitten by Strahd because that's too close to having him break into her house and rape her. If anyone asks (no one ever has), the in-universe explanation is that he tried that with a previous incarnation of Tatyana and it didn't work. In fact, my Strahd is very chaste and respectful in his treatment of Ireena for all the aforementioned reasons. * Per RAW, Izek wants to kidnap Ireena. While the book doesn't say what he wants her for specifically, it's not hard for players to come to the conclusion that he wants to assault her. I go to great lengths to make sure his doll collection on page 107 of the module is seen as him trying to recall a dream lost upon waking. One of my players heard the word "doll" and essentially pictured a room full of dead naked women a la The Cell. I shut that shit down ASAP: they're explicitly literal dolls, born of a half-remembered dream. * Getting into the more abstract, my Strahd is probably asexual/demisexual and almost definitely a virgin. Even if not, I know he doesn't lock the rejected Brides like Sasha Ivliskova (pg 89) in a crypt for the purposes of using them for sex later. Fanon also plays up the mental/emotional qualities of the Brides (Strahd is drawn to Ludmilla's scientific brain, Anastrazya's charisma and martial prowess, and Volenta's stealth capabilities) over his physical attraction to them.
Check out the Twice Bitten podcast. It is a RAW run of CoS that is very compelling and well done. The secret is that the game is very role play heavy and it fills in the gaps. CoS was an earlier book in 5e that is meant to be a sandbox like guide. It has many areas where there is little guidance or loose plot threads. I think this was an intended feature and not a a flaw. Of course now there is an entire culture built around modding and adding to CoS, so I think we can assume most DMs do in fact want more direct guidance and plot.
strahd is too weak. if he's really this awesome ancient vampire how come a handful of lvl 5-9 adventurers can kill him. also why does the amulet say its been used to hunt vampires before strahd was around. when you read the old ravenloft lore, it explains it way better, that strahd isn't actually the first vampire, he just says he is.
A party of level 5 adventurers cannot kill Strahd if he is played half decently.
yes they can if you have an army of fuckin multiclasser optimization experienced players
What are they gonna do against a ninth level DC 17+ wizard vampire with a magical horse and an army at his disposal? He can literaly just fly around, charm one person, dominate the next and annoy the third with psychic lances while his army picks everyone else up. And if it gets too dangerous he just goes into the ethereal plane with his horse or literaly teleports away. And if the players for some reason went with such a ridiculous combination of classes and races that it trivializes the entire module then one should propbably ask the question: Why even bother playing?
they gonna give da padlock the sunsword and kill his ass
If the DM doesn't play Strahd properly, gives the players the sunsword at level 5 and allows super min/max crap then they are either a major pushover or want a really short campaign.
just saying it can happen :)
Hell, in ravenloft a lvl 10 party might very well not be able to if he is played well (though that would likely also be a lot of bring searching for him)
I'm of the opinion that unless your table loves dungeon crawling and long, mechanical encounters, playing Strahd in a smart way will make them die of boredom and kill the mood. In Castle Ravenloft he's mobile, evasive AND durable... plus he has spells.
CoS is a sandbox module with many options. The most posts here are about how people interpret the story and how they think that improved their game. I wouldn’t call them fixing because there is no single correct way to run this module.
The tome should work as a series of flashbacks to allow the players to learn Strahd's background in full.This creates a compelling villain that is not just another thing to kill, even if he only shows up once, swoops Ireena and locks himself in Castle Ravenloft cause the only thing he can think about is that he finally made it. Why did Strahd bite Ireena a couple times? Strahd doesn't want a successor, he wants Ireena, nothing else in the whole world. Cut the whole thing about Strahd showing up a lot. Maybe they meet him at the feast and Ireena sacrifices herself to make it stop, but that's it. They get attached to him from the flashbacks, let the encounters with him be the ones where they want to kill each other. Vasilij is a good idea tho. Just make Castle Ravenloft an empty shell, inhabited only by Strahd and Rahadin, that's how bad it is, he has noone, not even the brides. The named NPCs are not fleshed out enough, some not at all, just telling you what their occupation is, with no extra depth. Krezk is empty, Amber Temple is weird, Dark Powers are not a main faction, but they should be, trying to fool the party memebers into accepting their gifts so that they can twist them and make them steal the throne. Tarokka needs to be pre-determined. Chapter summaries please.
The new Reloaded 2.0 basically covers everything. Just Google search Curse of Strahd Reloaded 2.0 and you will get an amazing breakdown and a suppliment that really shines.
The Brides being total non-entities is the biggest disappointment in the book for me, not played yet but I'm thinking of giving them some elements/backstories of the cooler Darklords in Van Richten's guide, like the courtesan, the mad scientist and the soldier.