D&D 5E CoS: Full of child peril and death, but lacking...

[S'mon]

It gives them all the major NPCs personality traits, bonds, and flaws. So they're pretty succinctly characterized. The rest get small lines whenever it fits, with some receiving a lot of character and others less so.

That sounds ok. I was worried it was like Lost Mine of Phandelver, where the personalities of the quest-giver NPCs aren't detailed at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As for the Rape Metaphor of Bram Stoker's Dracula being transferred to this adventure and whether or not its called for, I am not opposed to it but I'd rather not have Ireena be passive and easily victimized (as I remember Mina Harker being). I'd prefer her to act as the bad ass that her picture on page 45. While the metaphor is distributing and repulsive, it characterizes The Count to a T and, if Ireena is actively opposing him, gives the PCs some great motivation. The metaphor is doubly disturbing if the PCs have met Gertruda as described above.

What are your guys' thought on these? Keeping in mind all the ideas and metaphors put forth are not overt (as so many posters here mistakenly think), are they enough to add that classic sexual tension found in Bram Stoker's Dracula, or is there another theme that would work better? Is the free love Vistani option too 'on the nose'? Is there a better theme in the Flesh Golem being built in the Abbey, ala Frankenstein?

Another avenue is the history between Strahd and Patrina - Patrina actively courts the count (who mostly just uses her and tosses her aside). She can be a good example of how love can drive one to dark deeds - the madness of passion, etc.

 

[77IM]

I just can't figure out how to make were-ravens sexy in any way, shape, or form.
Cool? Yes. Sexy? No.

 

[MechaPilot]

I just can't figure out how to make were-ravens sexy in any way, shape, or form.
Cool? Yes. Sexy? No.

I'm sure there's a way. I just don't know enough about birds to come up with any good advice/ideas for you.

. . .

Okay, so I looked them up on Wikipedia and found some stuff that might help.

Apparently, a flock of ravens also used to be called a "conspiracy" or an "unkindness." That doesn't help so much, unless you want to translate the "unkindness" name into BDSM type behavior or the "conspiracy" name into a propensity for multiple partners.

The common raven apparently travels in mated pairs and has quarrelsome relationships between the pair. You could translate that into the old slap-slap-kiss-kiss trope if you wanted to.

The common raven is also apparently playful, having been observed to slide down snow banks, apparently for fun. They also apparently play a kind of catch-me-if-you-can game with other species. You could translate those into a propensity to flirt with other species and lead them on specifically for their own amusement.

 

[rcsample]

To be fair, it wasn't until my fourth session of CoS that one of the players tried to have sex. It was with one of the Vistani owners of the Blood of the Vine tavern, and he was really playing his "I fall for a pretty face" flaw to a T.

Wow, your player had sex, right there at the table?

 

[delericho]

...the thing all good Gothic Horror films and novels are chock full of: SEX!

Well sensuality, mostly. I find it kind of a 'softball' move to go to the 'child ghost' and 'child sacrifice' shtick to create peril and mood but - as far as my reading indicates - completely gloss over the inherent sensuality of the Gothic Horror tale. Am I missing something? I'm not asking for Keanu Reeves getting seduced by a coven of Vampresses... Vampressi (I dunno), or other over the top excesses from modern movies attempts at the genre. Rather I'd like the subtle under currents of tittlating sensuality you get in Bram Stoker's original novel, or - if you've read it - Carmilla.

What about the implicate sexual struggle found in Frankenstein? The disturbingly erotic tone of Wuthering Heights?

To be honest, it's probably just as well that this is left out of the adventure as published. What those Gothic Horror films and novels is not good, wholesome, fun sex, but rather various depictions of sex gone horribly wrong: the rape metaphor in "Dracula", Heathcliff's unhealthy obsession in "Wuthering Heights", rape, incest and pedophilia in "The Werewofl of Paris", and so on.

And while there's certainly a place for any of these in storytelling, and even in RPGs, that place is probably not in a product aimed at the mass-market. Indeed, it's probably best just to leave these themes out almost entirely, and let groups add them as much as they want.

Anyone have any suggestions to add a some sexual dynamism to the adventure?

Firstly, speak to your players to find out both how far they're willing to go in general and also if there are any specific areas they want to avoid. (A group might be happy with a solid R rating in general, but insist that rape in particular be avoided, for instance.) And make sure you respect the least permissive of these - this isn't an area for insisting on a compromise or for pushing something on an unwilling player. (If you play in a public area, you'll also need to be mindful of your potential audience.)

Beyond that, it's mostly about details and descriptions, and also about including (and emphasising) various characters motives for doing things. So when a vampire drinks blood, play up the sexual rush that is implied. When a lycanthrope changes, emphasise that they're casting off the restrictions of their civilised human nature and freeing their more animal urges. Emphasise Strahd's lust for Ireena, or his carnal attraction to his chosen successor (and the thwarted lust when it inevitably turns out the successor just doesn't measure up).

 

[CapnZapp]

To be honest, it's probably just as well that this is left out of the adventure as published.

No, that's the point.

If the story didn't feature eating children and suffering peasants, not to mention all the impeding violence, I'd understand the reluctance.

But now?

Avoiding sex and romance, even the "gone bad" variants, when there's all that oppression and murdering and killing? Isn't that "violence gone bad"?

 

[delericho]

No, that's the point.

If the story didn't feature eating children and suffering peasants, not to mention all the impeding violence, I'd understand the reluctance.

But now?

Avoiding sex and romance, even the "gone bad" variants, when there's all that oppression and murdering and killing? Isn't that "violence gone bad"?

You're rather unlikely to have a player at your table who was murdered as a child. You're somewhat more likely to have a player who has been involved in a bad relationship... and you may very well not know about it.

 

[timbannock]

CoS doesn't give its NPCs any personality?!
At least Paizo like to give their NPCs personalities - and even include romance etc. Guess Paizo
adventures aren't suitable for children, who should only be exposed to violence and horror, never romance.

Several NPCs that receive write-ups in the back of the book -- even when it doesn't include stats because they use an existing monster/NPC statblock -- include Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws. Several of the most important ones, at any rate. Not even vaguely close to all of them (there's like 400 named NPCs or something ridiculous in this adventure). But even then, many NPCs that don't get back-of-the-book write-ups still have at least some hints or mentions of traits to roleplay them (Blinsky, for instance), so the adventure is not directionless about this.

 

[Elderbrain]

Why is THIS edition being labeled sex(uality)-free? I must have missed the multiple, rampant depictions of sex in all the previous editions, somehow... and anyway, this is the first edition to specifically mention sexual orientation on one's PC right there in the PHB, so I think it's a little unfair to say it's sexuality-free, just because COS doesn't have any orgies in it or the like. Anyway, the DM and the PCs can amp up the "sex" angle as much as they want in ANY game product, whether that's presented as an option in the text or not. ("I'm sorry, Mordenkainen, but I'm already shacking up with Elminster!")