D&D 5E Curse of Strahd spoiler-filled general discussion

shidaku said:

Well written? I dunno. I'll have to think about that for a while. I still think Dracular, Tolkein and Shakespear tell great stories, which I find more important than great writing most of the time. Unfortunately a lot of things that are considered "great writing" in literature circles aren't necessarily great stories. Like The Grapes of Wrath is largely considered well written, and I would agree. But it is also something I would never read more than twice in my life.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between great writings and personal preference.

shidaku said:

Well written? I dunno. I'll have to think about that for a while. I still think Dracular, Tolkein and Shakespear tell great stories, which I find more important than great writing most of the time. Unfortunately a lot of things that are considered "great writing" in literature circles aren't necessarily great stories. Like The Grapes of Wrath is largely considered well written, and I would agree. But it is also something I would never read more than twice in my life.

Click to expand...

Ok, I see where you're coming from now.

There are plenty of classics that are fun to read, but not really "high art", and I think Dracula, for example, is a good example of that. On the other hand, lots of Literary Masterpieces are absolute terrors to get through (Ulysses, I'm looking at you). I just thought you were saying the Dracula, LotR, or Shakespeare wasn't well-written (as in; plot-hole ridden and cliche) vs. not being High Art.

Still, we can all agree...

Corpsetaker said:

Please don't say Salvatore.

Click to expand...

Salvatore is alright for what he writes: pop-culture schlock. Its the lit-equivalent to a Steven Seagal movie. I was more worried he'd name Martin, King, Rice, Jordan, or some other modern fantasy or horror writer and claim their superiority over the eternal classics of the genres.

Wikipedia:

Some time after this reunion, the Count himself fell in love with a young Barovian woman, Tatyana, though she rejected his affections in favor of the younger Sergei. Filled with despair and jealousy, and brooding a growing hatred for Sergei, Strahd sought magical means to restore his youth. In a moment of desperate frustration, he "made a pact with death - a pact of blood." On the day of Sergei and Tatyana's wedding, Strahd murdered his brother and pursued the grieving Tatyana until she flung herself from the walls of Ravenloft. Strahd himself was shot down by the arrows of the castle guard. Even so, he did not die, but went on to rule the land of Barovia as a vampire.

I tend to take a cherry-picking/hand waving approach to all published material. I pick what I want and hand wave away issue that do not suit me. I ordered CoS and it has not yet arrived, but I expect to be cherry picking and hand waving when it arrives.

Strahd has been handled by many writers over the years, so inconsistency in events and themes have appeared, but I am comfortable with Strahd having always been some kind of bastard before his pact with evil and murdering his brother. For example, I think it is the module From the Shadows with states even before that Strahd had been making deals with yugoloths. The final pact was just another brick in the wall.

Corpsetaker said:

*sighs*

Well I just want to extend a big "thank you" to Chris Perkins for putting me off yet another D&D product by ruining things and adding his goofy "stench" to things.

I'm glad I read this thread before I went out and wasted my money. This was actually something I looked forward to.

Click to expand...

A lot of this was the Hickmans idea's what's wrong with Perkins.

The Adventure is very good and I consider it one of the strongest adventure's in D&D History.

Not everyone agree's about some of it's details however. Like the fact that he started the pact before he met Tatanya.

I However think Strahd is fine as he is in the Adventure. His goal is to get Ireena, and to find an successor someone worthy of ruling Barovia. Because he believes if he does he will be able to leave his prison at last. But Strahd is as always too flawed and arrogant and in the end considers none of the PC"s as worthy of succeeding him. So he decides to kill them.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's good that they changed the adventure all around in ways that contradict "canon." I mean, if they didn't, then what would be the point? If you want to play I6: Ravenloft then by all means do so. But when another author updates and modernizes it I think he should put his own spin on things. Especially when he collaborates with the original authors in doing so!

To hell with canon.

We're all perfectly capable of changing anything we want to suit our purposes anyway, so I have no problem with them tweaking the story a bit. Especially since the Hickmans were involved.

As for Strahd's fall....does anyone truly think it was not gradual? I mean, one day he's fine and the next he sells his soul, kills his brother, and stalks the object of his affection to her doom. Just boom all at once?

It's always been described as an incremental descent. His mother favored Sergei, everyone around their family loved Sergei...Strahd's off fighting wars and doing awful things to secure their kingdom, but when he comes home, all he sees is everyone loving his little brother. Then Tatyana comes along and it's the last straw.

The exact order of events doesn't seem as important in that regard. The reasona all still seem the same, even if they play out a little differently.

Having said that, I'll probably tweak the Dark Powers/vestiges stuff a bit. I'll have to read that section thoroughly and then decide how I want it all to play out.

Jester Canuck said:

This is a reoccurring problem with WotC and the current team. Like how the entire modus operandi of the Cult of the Dragon changed and contorted to fit the Tyranny of Dragons storyline.

Click to expand...

I thought that at first, too, but then I did some research and discovered that there was actually a lot of history there, and it's not something that WotC just pulled out of their hat. The seeds for the ToD storyline were planted in 2e's Cult of the Dragon and 3e's Dragons of Faerûn sourcebooks. So as not to derail the thread, I would point you here.

MonsterEnvy said:

I disagree. Strahd is fine. His damage is actually pretty high and his ability to disengage from the battle whenever he chooses while they can't follow him makes him very dangerous due to his regen.

Strahd's not a straight up fighter, he is a hit and runner.

Click to expand...

This is my impression as well.

Yes, if the DM fights Strahd unintelligently he might be easy to kill. But because of that regen if he beats them up for a while then flees, then gets them again...and again...before they've had a long rest? Could be very different.