D&D 5E Nananananananaaaa BATMAN! (about vampires in D&D and in general, Ravenloft/Curse of Strahd etc.)

[gyor]

I get where you're coming from. However, I'd argue back that a specific NPC's and especially an "end boss" and iconic NPCs performance in the story isn't just about his on-screen performance, since the players presumably learned a lot about him through the adventure prior to that point, thus a more interesting backstory indeed adds to the quality of the adventure. Besides, I as a GM could do more work with a more interesting and relatable villain, it adds depth to his personality, to his goals and generally makes me more interested in him. I like when an adventure has interesting background besides the interesting here and now encounters. Makes the whole more lively to me. that, and i like to read stories, I like to read the adventure background in Paizo's APs, because even when the players won't explore the whole of it, it adds to my game.



Because it was advertised as a toe-dip in Ravenloft. Because Ravenloft isn't just the adventure, it's the setting. They would just need to write certain things that was written any way, but not in the way of discarding the setting, but working with it. That and adding a paragraph in the introduction, or in the end as a "how to continue the campaign" section. In a perfect way a short appendix, like in the end of SCAG about how to integrate the class options onto other settings. 1 or two page at best.

Would it have been really that much? That much space, that much effort? Wouldn't have been better to acknowledge the favorite setting of countless fans and one of D&D's most interesting worlds? To really bring it into the new edition, to open gates instead of closing them? Why it worked in the past but wouldn't have work in the present? Would it detract from the adventure?

No, it wasn't made that way because it would have been that hard, or eating up that much page count from the book. It was made that way, because they didn't want to acknowledge the setting. Strahd's story was altered, because the Hickmans wanted to make a point. The adventure rejected the setting, because the Hickamns and/or the D&D staff, or just Perkins doesn't like the Ravenloft setting (I recall something from an interview, or discussion, i definitely remember reading somewhere that Hickman always disliked the setting). Maybe it weren't them, after all RL remained as the 4e paradigm, so might be that someone disliked, or didn't care about the old setting, or just like the 4e version better. Maybe because he/she worked on that, I don't know. I just think it was a bad decision. Maybe it doesn't matter to a lot of new fans, who never knew the setting, or fans who never cared about RL, just wanted to punch Strahd in the face. However, it matters to me and to a lot of people.

Its simular to how they have dealt with FR, the setting may as well not exist outside of the Sword Coast.

So using this thinking, Ravenloft is reduced to a wannabe Barovia, just as if they do an Eberron adventure it will likely be restricted a small region of the setting with zero support for the rest, if they do darksun the setting will likely be reduced to just one city, and so on.

This is a trend I dislike strongly. Trunckated settings, yuck.

As for Strahd I was fine with him being a really evil vampire, until I read the sexist logic behind it, which turned me right off. Villifying the male gender, and dumping the negative actions of the other onto it was repulsive to me, so I desided CoS was no go for me, period.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Its simular to how they have dealt with FR, the setting may as well not exist outside of the Sword Coast.

So using this thinking, Ravenloft is reduced to a wannabe Barovia, just as if they do an Eberron adventure it will likely be restricted a small region of the setting with zero support for the rest, if they do darksun the setting will likely be reduced to just one city, and so on.

This is a trend I dislike strongly. Trunckated settings, yuck.

As for Strahd I was fine with him being a really evil vampire, until I read the sexist logic behind it, which turned me right off. Villifying the male gender, and dumping the negative actions of the other onto it was repulsive to me, so I desided CoS was no go for me, period.

You still have not answered me how it villifed the male gender. Or how it was sexist. Because it does not. Nothing about the foreword suggests anything like that.

You are completely wrong about the setting. It was not rejected at all. There is nothing wrong with an adventure focusing on a single part of a setting.

Also despite claiming they did not want to advertise the setting, they made several references to it including characters from other Ravenloft realms.

 

[cmad1977]

Ruthless, murderous, manipulative, bloodthirsty,
At times ear feral in their bloodlust.

Humans are cattle and should've treated as such.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And the misinterpretation of abusive behavior as true love is an all-too-real problem that we definitely don't need to reinforce in our pop culture (looking at you, Twilight).

Vampires don't need to be a rape metaphor, though. Reinterpretation is often a good thing.
Twilight is toxic in ways that wouldn't be less toxic if the shiny dude wasn't a vampire.

Vampires can be any number of things, and even in folklore, where they come from, they aren't always a rape metaphor, unless you're also going to claim that literally any predator (ie, creature that eats other creatures) is.

But thst isn't even the point, really. Dracula is most interesting when he is a complex character. I plains that are "just evil" because reasons are cartoons. Not the good kind, like adventure time, but the silly kind no one takes seriously, like He-Man.

 

[PMárk]

You are completely wrong about the setting. It was not rejected at all. There is nothing wrong with an adventure focusing on a single part of a setting.

Also despite claiming they did not want to advertise the setting, they made several references to it including characters from other Ravenloft realms.

All the adventures focusing on a limited part of the setting, but the other adventures don't handle the other parts of the Realms as nonexistent. Even OotA has parts that connected to the larger world above. All of them have the AL factions, even CoS, as a starting point, while isn't having ANY RL factions. SCAG speaks about the other parts of FR. We didn't even get a short RL web-supplement for RL. We got a supplemetn for MtG's own faux-RL for hell's sake!

Meanwhile CoS mentions the bigger setting's existence in just one sentence. In a sidebar, that the original adventure inspired the setting and that's all. You could say it hasn't need to and that it's irrelevant from the adventure's standpoint, but sorry, I think it is chicanery. The adventure could be written in a way that acknowledges the setting, it's factions, it's wider implications, while maintaining the confined nature easily. It wouldn't take more space and the adventure would be just as good, while opening up gates.

The "characters" are just one character, arguably the most famous one after Strahd, the one, supplements got named after: Van Richten, D&D's Van Helsing for D&D's Dracula. And even he got altered. Yes, it mentions he comes from Darkon, but doesn't say anything about where Darkon is. As far as the adventure goes and from a newcomer's viewpoint, who doesn't know anything about the setting, Darkon is just another country in another world and VR came here just as the PCs and Volo in the D+ short story. The whole thing is not the acknowledging of the setting, it's an easter egg.

Strahd's arch-enemies, the Dilisnyas are ruling one of the adjacent domains. does this get mentioned? It could be easily integrated into the module, via NPCs.

And why on earth do they have to massacre the arguably most sacred cow in RL and defining the Dark Powers? Ok, you could Interpret it that it's not the case, that Strahd was mislead, that the vestiges are just a proxy, or manifestation, whatever. Again, it's chicanery, because it's adding to the adventure's background content that wasn't there and probably contradicts with the intention of the writers. Ultimately, you could tweak the adventure to fill it into the wider setting, sure, no problem. I'd probably do that if running it ever, but it's not how the adventure was written.

In the end, in 2e they broadened the setting immensely and made it into a possibility to using it as a main setting. During 3e, they made significant efforts to further building it into it's own functioning world, not just a weekend in Gothicland. Countless great supplements were written during both era that fleshed out the setting and made it unique. For example: one of the parts that I like in RL very much is how it's more 17-18 century in parts than medieval. Guns are, when not common in every domain, are fairly common in others and you could run into them in anywhere. I think it adds to the feeling, the original gothic millieu. Honestly that' one of the point, besides Ustalav why I think PF's Golarion's main inspiration was RL, because the whole vibe I get from a lot of illustrations in PF is just closer to RL than to FR, for example.

Then, in 4e WotC decided to throwing out all of it and made the domains individual places in the shadowfell and 5e kept that approach and CoS was written with that in mind. So yes, they definitely rejected the way of 2e/3e, as a setting on it's own. You can't just pretend that deliberately doing things in a way instead of doing it in another as nonexistent. Yes, they didn't say RL is no more. They just went with the 4e way in the corebooks, written CoS without any real connections to it and didn't do anything, not a web-supplement, not even 1 page appendix, or a paragraph in the book about it. You know, there is a point, when not speaking is just a soft way of rejecting.

I'm not saying they did it because of any ire toward the RL fans. Probably they have their perfectly logical reasons, but I don't have to like it, don't have to agree with it and don't have to pretend they did otherwise.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

All the adventures focusing on a limited part of the setting, but the other adventures don't handle the other parts of the Realms as nonexistent. Even OotA has parts that connected to the larger world above. All of them have the AL factions, even CoS, as a starting point, while isn't having ANY RL factions. SCAG speaks about the other parts of FR. We didn't even get a short RL web-supplement for RL. We got a supplemetn for MtG's own faux-RL for hell's sake!

Meanwhile CoS mentions the bigger setting's existence in just one sentence. In a sidebar, that the original adventure inspired the setting and that's all. You could say it hasn't need to and that it's irrelevant from the adventure's standpoint, but sorry, I think it is chicanery. The adventure could be written in a way that acknowledges the setting, it's factions, it's wider implications, while maintaining the confined nature easily. It wouldn't take more space and the adventure would be just as good, while opening up gates.

The "characters" are just one character, arguably the most famous one after Strahd, the one, supplements got named after: Van Richten, D&D's Van Helsing for D&D's Dracula. And even he got altered. Yes, it mentions he comes from Darkon, but doesn't say anything about where Darkon is. As far as the adventure goes and from a newcomer's viewpoint, who doesn't know anything about the setting, Darkon is just another country in another world and VR came here just as the PCs and Volo in the D+ short story. The whole thing is not the acknowledging of the setting, it's an easter egg.

Strahd's arch-enemies, the Dilisnyas are ruling one of the adjacent domains. does this get mentioned? It could be easily integrated into the module, via NPCs.

And why on earth do they have to massacre the arguably most sacred cow in RL and defining the Dark Powers? Ok, you could Interpret it that it's not the case, that Strahd was mislead, that the vestiges are just a proxy, or manifestation, whatever. Again, it's chicanery, because it's adding to the adventure's background content that wasn't there and probably contradicts with the intention of the writers. Ultimately, you could tweak the adventure to fill it into the wider setting, sure, no problem. I'd probably do that if running it ever, but it's not how the adventure was written.

In the end, in 2e they broadened the setting immensely and made it into a possibility to using it as a main setting. During 3e, they made significant efforts to further building it into it's own functioning world, not just a weekend in Gothicland. Countless great supplements were written during both era that fleshed out the setting and made it unique. For example: one of the parts that I like in RL very much is how it's more 17-18 century in parts than medieval. Guns are, when not common in every domain, are fairly common in others and you could run into them in anywhere. I think it adds to the feeling, the original gothic millieu. Honestly that' one of the point, besides Ustalav why I think PF's Golarion's main inspiration was RL, because the whole vibe I get from a lot of illustrations in PF is just closer to RL than to FR, for example.

Then, in 4e WotC decided to throwing out all of it and made the domains individual places in the shadowfell and 5e kept that approach and CoS was written with that in mind. So yes, they definitely rejected the way of 2e/3e, as a setting on it's own. You can't just pretend that deliberately doing things in a way instead of doing it in another as nonexistent. Yes, they didn't say RL is no more. They just went with the 4e way in the corebooks, written CoS without any real connections to it and didn't do anything, not a web-supplement, not even 1 page appendix, or a paragraph in the book about it. You know, there is a point, when not speaking is just a soft way of rejecting.

I'm not saying they did it because of any ire toward the RL fans. Probably they have their perfectly logical reasons, but I don't have to like it, don't have to agree with it and don't have to pretend they did otherwise.

Leo Dilisnyas is mentioend in the book, and the fact that Darkon is an Easter egg means they are acknowledging the setting, it not in the way you wanted it to but it was. But the fact is the setting is unimportant to the adventure, which is based on the original one and beating Strahd, having another domain get involved would distract from Strahd.

The location of the Ravenloft Demiplanes is in the shadowfell, how does that change anything about the setting other then it's location.

 

[PMárk]

No, still don't agree. IF they would have been writing "VR is from Darkon, which is the northern neighbor of Barovia and then maybe adding that usually there is trading between the two, but about x time Strahd closed the borders, because of y reasons." then I'd say that would be the acknowledging of the setting and it haven't distracted anything from Strahd and the adventure. Keeping VR as a rogue and scholar instead of a wizard haven't neither. Sorry, but picking up the most second most famous character, who, again got notable supplements named after him, without context is not acknowledging. It's a wink-wink-poke toward the fans at best. I think it made it into the book primarily because VR is just so iconic and because it has exactly the purpose that people, like you could point to that ONE character and ONE line (both without context) as "hey, these are from the old setting, so they're acknowledging it!".

It's like picking, for example Cormyr from FR, writing an adventure without ANY mention or connection regarding the wider FR, treating Cormyr as a standalone setting somewhere in the middle of a wast forest wilderland, then putting Elminster in there, mentioning he's from Sahdowdale, making him a priest and that's it. Would you say it is acknowledging the FR setting? Without ANY other supplement/adventure/web content/pdf from WotC that connected to FR?

Leo was in the backstory of Strahd. I'm speaking about Ivan, who is the co-darklord of Borca, one of the neighboring domains. Also, they integrated a lot of themes in CoS as sidequests which themes had their individual domains, stories and darklords in the old setting.

Look, upthread (or in the other thread?) we discussed RL's place in the 5e cosmology. I say the DMG writing clearly kept the approach of 4e, ie: individual domains in the Shadowfell, not a contiguous continent and several connected individual domain. CoS, didn't include even a tiny paragraph, or a half-page to contradict this. We didn't get a D+ article to contradict this, nor an UA, nor a web-supplement, but we got one for Innistrad. For me, this is fairly clear a message.

I'd be happy with something like the Innistrad supplement. It's a good piece, lots of fluff, good artworks, I'd argue better ones than the general 5e, but it's a highly personal taste question. The Planeshisft series would be a good way to support old settings with minimal effort.

But, hey, it's just my opinion and we all have the right for one! If you happen wanting to read what the Ravenloft fandom thinks about how CoS acknowledges the setting or not, I suggest going out there and reading some blogs, or other forums. The general consensus is "no, it isn't".

 

[QuietBrowser]

Plus, in all honesty, the Dark Powers were never interesting for being "mysterious". Everyone could easily see them as the cheap DM's railroading tools and handwavium factory they've been since the beginning. We all knew they were there, but they ultimately didn't add anything to the setting. And I say this as someone who loved the 3e setting for trying to be more than 2e's "Weekend in Hell" factory. I had all the material I needed on the "ground"; the Dark Powers may as well not have existed. At least the Amber Temple is a cool idea. Hell, it's a better hook than the old Dark Powers ever were in my experience.

 

[PMárk]

I'm somewhat ambiguous about that. Yes, they could have been railroad-y devices, or a more pretentious allegory of the DM. However i liked that basically no one knew what exactly they are, what do they want, if they want anything? Why did they made the Demiplane? Are they malevolent, indifferent, or some kind of cruel righteousness? I liked all that questions. I also liked how RL was an essentially "godless" setting and in this way also very much different from FR.

It's like the new WW guys writing a chronicle-book and you could met Caine in somewhere in it and he explains how the whole vampirism thing happened, then shares some anecdotes about Lilith and what was all the fuss with the antes...

That, and I liked how there was a real consequence for deeds. The whole power/corruption of the soul theme.

Actually I'm just reading Paizo's Horror Adventures and it has some good take on it. If i'm wanting to run RL right now, I'll definitely took that and OA and the 3e material. Well, maybe not with a totally all-beginner to rpgs party, with very laisezz-fare attitude.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the 3e stuff is that there's too much high-level (L 10-12-14) NPCs in them, but that's easily amendable. The fluff is super and i love most of the artworks.

 

[QuietBrowser]

To which I reiterate; if we don't know what they want, or why they do the things they do, or even if they really exist... then why exactly do we care about them?

Seriously, there's raising questions, and there's being pretentiously vague, and the Dark Powers have always leaned more towards the latter than the former. Every time I've read the rulebooks, I have at best just glazed over their existence and dismissed them as unimportant, or found myself irritably asking the open air "they're pricks, it's quite obvious they're pricks, why is this supposed to be some sort of deep mystery?"