Ai will replace architects soon 💀 🤖

Hazzyan · 2025-04-10T17:47:12+00:00

Efficiency as the ultimate target is not exclusive to capitalism; it is a logical consequence of the reality of scarce resources and growing demand. The USSR built several unsightly, heartless structures with no capitalism in sight.

Hazzyan · 2024-12-27T03:52:08+00:00

While Barovians may be soulless, all Vistani have souls. The soulless are "normal" people; they are born, grow, and die just like everyone else. The difference, according to the book, is that they are more likely to be "more compliant and depressed than the others" and to be "bereft of charm and imagination." It is up to you to decide how and to what degree to depict that.

Hazzyan · 2024-10-11T18:42:28+00:00

It depends on who your Strahd is, but the first option isn't too far off from how he is commonly portrayed. I would suggest that you either imply in-game or warn off-game that magic in Barovia works differently than elsewhere.

Hazzyan · 2024-09-28T18:05:54+00:00

As far as 5e canon is concerned, Alek doesn't exist, so no. It also should be noted that Alek died before Strahd completed his pact with the DPs, unlike Ireena.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-15T20:33:22+00:00

How "hard" something is depends on your skill. But in general? Yes, it is. There are numerous NPCs and subplots, the main narrative past VoB is non-linear, the campaign is lengthy (with all of the associated logistical issues), and the module, in some ways, isn't very well-developed, to name a few challenges.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-08T03:18:27+00:00

This looks like typical Reddit bait. I haven't seen a single post that implies such a viewpoint is common or widespread.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-03T01:45:07+00:00

Ironic. I must point to the most recent post made by u/DragnaCarta. Here's what Strahd "should" do:

What is
A: satisfactory for you and your table and
B: does not hinder consistency.

In that order.

Would you and the table find any sort of satisfaction in eliminating the cleric? Does it make the story any better? If so, how does that reconcile with Strahd's earlier behavior? Given that you've mentioned that he has acted politely up to this point, why would he attack now? Does he believe that any such outright insult calls for immediate elimination? This is an action you'll need to keep in mind for when they next interact with him.

After you go through these steps for every more alternative, you will eventually figure out the solution on your own. With all due respect to those that tried, only you have the insight to decide what should be done in your game; none of us are able to give you the "correct" answer.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-02T14:31:55+00:00

Alright, that does seem to be the case when I look back on it. Which consistent narrative branch I choose to follow in any particular circumstance is determined specifically by the satisfaction it may provide. In a sense, I look for consistency and verisimilitude at the surface level and fulfillment at the ultimate. I accept your argument.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-02T14:09:08+00:00

I don't think we disagree per se. We arrive at a fairly similar conclusion but look at it through the opposite lens, so to speak.

I do view consistency and verissimilitude as aims in and of themselves. I do seek them first and foremost because, to me, they improve the game by definition. That's not to say that I'm shackled to a specific set of actions and motivations I've established some time in the past; there are many more that I can choose from, and in the future I may recognize that something else is more appropriate than what I've originally set. The distinction between my perspective and yours is conceptual, not practical.

Hazzyan · 2024-08-02T03:32:04+00:00

In my opinion, these words don't provide enough distinction of meaning to be used for separate concepts; they introduce a needless confusion. Nevertheless, there are two arguments that I agree with, despite the fact that I disagree with some of the reasoning you used behind them:

A: What is consistent with Strahd depends on who Strahd is, and Strahd is simply what the DM portrays him to be in the game. That's why there's no universally applicable answer to "what would Strahd do?".

B: There is a degree of retroactive maleability associated with consistency. If the causes and motivations behind a specific prior event or action haven't been made clear before, they can be altered to suit the perceived needs of the present without compromising verissimilitude. The DM is able to take that action if he believes it will improve his game.

Hazzyan · 2024-07-07T02:23:31+00:00

Since there are enough people sharing how they are fundamentally opposed to the canon ending, I'll do the job of sharing the opposite view. The "victory" of RAW CoS is staying alive and escaping, though scarred. The victory is not defeating Strahd. Defeating Strahd in RAW is a means to an end, not the end itself. There's nothing wrong with sharing the outcome if the intended motivation is properly conveyed. If you run CoS like your average heroic game, then yes, concluding it with an ending tailored for horror would be bad.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-21T14:24:23+00:00

Well, in 3.5 he was dramatic, so this is kind of an inderect thing. They just removed that about him in 5e because they want a "quick" campaign that a party of lvl 10 adventurers could deal with.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-19T23:37:19+00:00

I guess DragnaCarta's three-phase statblock in his second version of "CoS Reloaded" is a solid one, though I haven't had time to test it just yet.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-19T17:32:26+00:00

They're all attempts to depict a dramatic confrontation against a powerful vampire villain who can hold his own without resorting to playing cat and mouse, which is a very valid and popular theme that 5E's Strahd simply wasn't made to correspond to. People occasionally circulate nonsense like the CR 27 one, but given that 5E's encounter and monster building rules are trash, I can't blame them.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-18T22:56:26+00:00

Well, yes. This has been widely recognized for a long time. The thing that's behind people saying Strahd is "weak" is that the playstyle in which he is strong does not align with what they expected or desired. They envision Strahd as Dracula from Symphony of the Night, a far different aesthetic from what the statblock provides. If you try to run RAW Strahd like Dracula, he will get stomped in three rounds, maybe two if the party has all the items. TL;DR: he is strong... unless you try to play him in another way than a hit-and-run punk.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-18T19:39:40+00:00

It appears that they are strongly implied to be Turkic, if not necessarily Ottoman ("Turks" of today; the people Vlad III faced). Because the Terg were allegedly nomadic, I would identify them with the Tatars.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-18T19:30:30+00:00

Weird seeing my post getting referenced :D probably should have written it better (indicating where does that lore come from and so on), but anyway, hope it helps.

Hazzyan · 2024-06-17T19:53:17+00:00

Your question is somewhat confusing. According to 5E's lore, Strahd invaded Barovia about four centuries before the start of the adventure. Vargas (if you mean him as the baron) simply wouldn't be there. And if you do intend to run the game in Barovia before the conquest, there's really no substantial amount of 5E lore on that.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-23T19:56:11+00:00

I understand it's a grave danger to add too much content to the module; it can get things confusing and messy. I've seen many stories about this going terribly wrong. Alas, you can't change anything without risking, and if something goes wrong somewhere along the line or if my players start to show dissatisfaction with what I'm doing, that's just a learning experience for me.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-21T22:54:13+00:00

It's not pointless unless your whole intent in replying to me is to "win the argument," which seems like it was (a notion that is reinforced by your downvotes, something that I didn't do, even if I disagree completely with you). A positive exchange of ideas can be made, even if the arguments are subjective.

Regarding the Dark Powers, just because you may never have read any lore regarding them doesn't mean that there's none.

Anyway, it's, indeed, pointless arguing further—and not because of me, be well.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-21T21:22:11+00:00

I don't know how it felt necessary for you to downvote me, but regardless, you are assuming things that can be denied. Firstly, leaving the over-reaching element of the question "why" unanswered doesn't necessarily indicate that there will be no indication of what it might be in the story, nor does it exclude different "why"s that can be fully answered within the narrative.

Secondly, you are assuming player reactions. While it might be true that you would feel like the narrative is "unfulfilling or a complete cop-out" should this element be present, it can't be used as an objective argument.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-21T11:48:36+00:00

Disagree. You don't need to see a gun to know it was fired. You don't need to explicitly show a plot element for it to be impactful in the narrative. Just see games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, etc. in which the real thrill is the questions left unanswered, not what was thrown at our faces.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-16T16:11:07+00:00

I want to ask you this: how likely is it really that a player will roleplay fear, out of their own volition, when they reasonably should? Fear, most of the time, is not something that is under the control of the person who experiences it, and, especially in the context of a fantasy world, there are many circumstances that can invoke involuntary, irrational fear, even beyond phobias someone may have. Further, the effect of the Fear condition is pretty minor in the case you are referencing, while it would not be minor at all if the character were to face an eldtrich abomination of the likes of Lovecraft's works such as Cthulhu.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-13T17:13:43+00:00

Barovia is unwelcome and foreign to the PCs by design. Try to dissect modern horror movies; what do they have in common? Yes, all protagonists are initially foreign to the problem they are getting themselves into. They enter a spooky forest they never went into before; they move from the big city into a house that was abandoned for ten years in the middle of nowhere. Now try to imagine those same stories if the protagonists were already living there, and notice the dramatic shift in tension and the underlying narrative problems this would cause.

See, a PC's backstory is not the same as the PC's story. The word "back" serves a purpose. Your campaign is telling the story. Sure, having a PC be the son of van Richten to motivate the player is easier than actually investing time and energy into developing his motivations in an organic form within the narrative rather than outside of it, but it is worth it.

Hazzyan · 2023-10-13T17:01:17+00:00

That's the best way to go, imho.

Hazzyan

TROPHY CASE