D&D 5E challenge: rewrite Death House to avoid a key feature (spoilers)

[ZzarkLinux]

Just change them from Human Children to Dragonborn Hatchlings instead.

They were caught and, being non-humans in Ravenloft, were made into pets / servants in the house. But the masters of the house developed a fondness/nice relationship with them over time, and the hatchlings accepted their new lives of service / dwelling / Stockholm Syndrome thing.

Not human children. Not dogs or cats. But dragonborn hatchling servants. Or just regular servants.

 

[Savage Wombat]

... it's mentioned the Mr Durst slept with another woman, you could easily write the ghost to be that woman, perhaps killed by a vengeful wife ....

I thought it was implied that it was the maid. You know, the maid.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FYI, if you're going to keep running with Curse of Strahd after this, there are more dead children. Kind of a lot of them when a coven of hags enters the scene. You could change that, too, though - just a heads up.

I like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] 's idea. Another way to go with it is to have Rose and Thorn all grown up and seeking out adventurers to help them remember what went down in the house (and how they managed to escape it) on the anniversary of their adoption or something. Maybe they're looking for a brother they half-remember: Walter. Walter might have never actually existed, instead being a symptom of their father's growing madness. The children weren't killed, and maybe Strahd even let them live, knowing that they'd be useful for drawing future pawns into that haunted wreck for a bit of amusement.

 

[Sunseeker]

I thought it was implied that it was the maid. You know, the maid.

I must've missed that part then.

But as an aside, I question the value in running CoS if most of the "dark horror" elements are going to be stripped out, watered down or campy-fied.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But as an aside, I question the value in running CoS if most of the "dark horror" elements are going to be stripped out, watered down or campy-fied.

This.

There's nothing wrong with tweaking an adventure for personal tastes, of course. But there's also nothing wrong with saying an adventure--even a good, well-written one--simply isn't right for a given group. Why not play something that fits the group's preferences rather than square-peg-round-hole-ing it?

 

[CapnZapp]

This.

There's nothing wrong with tweaking an adventure for personal tastes, of course. But there's also nothing wrong with saying an adventure--even a good, well-written one--simply isn't right for a given group. Why not play something that fits the group's preferences rather than square-peg-round-hole-ing it?

Again, without more details on what aspect(s) of scenarios featuring dead children are unacceptable, it's hard to give specific advice.

 

[evilbob]

FYI, if you're going to keep running with Curse of Strahd after this, there are more dead children. Kind of a lot of them when a coven of hags enters the scene. You could change that, too, though - just a heads up.

I know. Thank you, though. The werewolves are easy - just make them adults - but the hags will take some thought. That's a ways off, though, and I have time.

Another way to go with it is to have Rose and Thorn all grown up and seeking out adventurers to help them remember what went down in the house (and how they managed to escape it) on the anniversary of their adoption or something. Maybe they're looking for a brother they half-remember: Walter. Walter might have never actually existed, instead being a symptom of their father's growing madness. The children weren't killed, and maybe Strahd even let them live, knowing that they'd be useful for drawing future pawns into that haunted wreck for a bit of amusement.

Actually having Rose and Thorn being all grown up - but still ghosts - might work. That's a much tighter line, since they would probably need to have died in the house, but they could have grown up first. Walter would probably be left out entirely, though.

 

[evilbob]

I wasn't going to respond, but I will respond once so that hopefully this side of the thread - which surprises me, frankly - can stop.

But wouldn't it be helpful it you told us about WHY you don't want dead children?

Again, without more details on what aspect(s) of scenarios featuring dead children are unacceptable, it's hard to give specific advice.

I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but please stop being so monumentally insensitive. I envy your pleasant life that you have no idea why dead children would be problematic to someone.

But as an aside, I question the value in running CoS if most of the "dark horror" elements are going to be stripped out, watered down or campy-fied.

"Most?" Really? This seems like needless judgement on how to play a game at a table that isn't yours. If you aren't contributing to the thread, there's no need to reply.

There's nothing wrong with tweaking an adventure for personal tastes, of course. But there's also nothing wrong with saying an adventure--even a good, well-written one--simply isn't right for a given group. Why not play something that fits the group's preferences rather than square-peg-round-hole-ing it?

Et tu, Mouse? I thought you were better than that. You've done enough hacking on D&D alone to know it's not hard to change set pieces without losing the flavor. I'll quote myself to hopefully end this:

Our group loves Ravenloft; we've played multiple multi-year campaigns in the setting in different systems. We are excited to go back and start again.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I was making a more general comment on flavor, not trying to push you in a given direction. My apologies if it came off as insensitive under the circumstances.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually having Rose and Thorn being all grown up - but still ghosts - might work. That's a much tighter line, since they would probably need to have died in the house, but they could have grown up first. Walter would probably be left out entirely, though.

They could have grown up in the afterlife, like in "What Dreams May Come," but that doesn't eliminate the dead children vibe completely. Ghosts tend to fixate on something important while they were alive. So if they're looking for adventurers to help them deal with the house, it's probably because they got adventurers to help them with the house, and died horribly in the attempt. Maybe the were returning to a childhood home they fled in terror. Perhaps the ghost of the 'nurse' could be replaced with the ghost of the heroic adventurer who tried, unsuccessfully to help them and was killed by the cult along with the Rose & Thorn.

Edit: Or, y'know, Rose & Thorn could have been adventurers. A pair of rogues, perhaps, or a bard and assassin, respectively? Instead of being sympathetic victims, they're looking for allies. They could still be returning to their childhood home, perhaps now aware of the cult and determined to stop it. The nurse could still be replaced by a fellow adventurer (the party fighter, perhaps, who died defending them and still tries to defend the area where she died), or she could be an inside connection who spilled the beans to the grown kids and was killed by the cult in revenge.