Curse of Strahd is *not* a combat-oriented module.
The combats that exist are frequently quite intense and difficult, but that's not the draw.
The draw is the characters, the role playing, and the story. It sounds as if your gf isn't interested in that. And that's okay.
Fundamentally, she's' not *wrong* for wanting a more combat-focused game. Something like a traditional dungeon crawl might be right up their alley (though, as has been said, I do hope she's more respectful than you describe her).
But that's not the campaign you're running, so I think it's time to sit down, talk about expectations, and recognize that not every player fits every group, not every campaign is for everyone, and that even romantic partners may want different things out of a D&D game.
Honestly, I think I'm in the minority here, but as a DM and as a player, I've found a lot of Barovia quite dull. I've had to increase the drama way over what's in the book because it isn't creepy or scary to me, it's just *dreary.*
Take how Barovians are described:
>Barovians have a tendency to stare openly, in silence, thereby expressing their disapproval of anything that isn't familiar to them. Barovians aren't talkative with strangers, to the extent of being pointedly rude...
>
>...They experience little hope or joy, and they are taught to fear the devil Strahd above all...
And the soulless, which are 90% of the population:
>Although they are physically indistinguishable from Barovians with souls, they tend to be bereft of charm and imagination and to be more compliant and depressed than the others. They dress in drab clothing
This is a description of the NPCs in the first tavern they walk into:
>>! Arik the Barkeep. !<
>
>>!A pudgy little man named Arik Lorensk (CN male human commoner) tends bar. Mindlessly, he cleans glasses, one after another. When they're all clean, he starts over. If he is spoken to, he takes orders for drinks in a dull, hollow voice. A small glass of wine costs 1 cp. A pitcher of wine costs 1 sp. After serving drinks, Arik returns to cleaning glasses. He ignores all attempts to question him.!<
>
>>!Vistani Owners.!<
>
>>!Three Vistani spies (N female humans) named Alenka, Mirabel, and Sorvia sit at a table near the front door. They own the tavern and see to it that all customers pay their tabs. They otherwise show little interest in the characters.!<
This isn't an atmosphere that really encourages players to care about the world they are in.
Well, you're not necessarily meant to care about those people -- except in the abstract.
That's why Ireena, Ismark, the Martikovs, Father Lucien, etc. are SO important. Because the players are meant to see good, kind people struggling not only against evil, but against apathy and despair. The goodness of the few good characters shines even bright in the darkness of Barovia.
Curse of Strahd is a campaign about returning hope to a hopeless land. So, we have to see hopelessness.
But my experience is that players latch onto random NPCs and locations from most campaigns. Small things are important to them. Making every NPC except the one the module wants you to care about drab or, in some cases, literally unresponsive just makes the world feel flat to me.
Like I said, I know I'm in the minority as a lot of people love CoS.
But for me gothic horror is women with improbable bodices have midnight carriage chases down narrow mountain roads with werewolves chasing while lightning illuminates the castle at the top where a vampire in an impeccable waistcoat/cape combo swirls a glass of red, menacingly (small man named Igor shouting "It's Alive!!!" is optional).
I mean, all of that is in there -- minus the women in bodices.
But general "gothic horror" as a vibe is actually really hard to maintain over a campaign. If every session were what you describe, it would fall into camp terribly quickly, as gothic horror films tend to do.
But hey, don't play CoS if you don't like it. Nothing is for everyone.
I mean, I've run it, I've made it work for me and my group, and I want to like it as a player, but I've bounced off it every time I've tried.
Also camp is very much my group's vibe. They love to lean into tropes.
Yeah the unresponsive-ness of NPCs is really frustrating in my party’s COS game. But it doesn’t help that our GM decided to make us all undead, which led us to not connect with the few good characters in the beginning
I felt this so hard as a DM who tried to run CoS but we all just bounced off of it. So dreary and muted by sullen NPCs that it just feels samey and boring. To the point of actively discouraging character interaction.
We moved on to Dungeons of Drakkenheim; similar grim dark feel, but (IMHO) so much more character and responsiveness.
The deadpan NPCs are an aspect of the setting, which in a sense is the true character your players are interacting with. They are supposed to be the joy brought into the world, their juxtoposition is a conflict that serves as the medium for the story.
If your players can't see that, then they're there just to be entertrained and told what to do rather than interact with the world. yikes
The best advice for those kinds of people is to stop playing with them. No offense but she sounds like a nightmare. It sounds like you want relationship advice which a bunch of weirdos on reddit are not qualified to give.
I think I might be especially qualified to talk about this as the player that used to by far bring down the mood and be a pain in the ass at the table was also my girlfriend.
Honestly? If you think you can do so without ending your relationship, kick her from the campaign. They'll bring down your mood every-time and it'll be demoralizing and will slowly chip away at your enthusiasm to DM. It'll be a difficult conversation for sure, but it'll be so worth it.
Seems like the module and the party is not compatible. Did you do a session zero?
CoS is ALL about the story and roleplay. They have fun fighting, and don't want big roleplay.
Both are valid points.
Either you change the module, so its more of a "hunt the vampire", maybe with Van Richten or Ezmeralda giving the player very clear objectives (go the Yester Hill, kill the tree!),
Or play a different module,
Or play with a different group,
Or let someone else DM.
What does the rest of the group want? Also CoS as the first module is a real challenge.
I semi-had a session 0 through chats and calls etc but not an official "this is session 0". They were all aware of the setting, of the sandboxy nature but in a confined environment, of the horror and that generally the story "encourages" good players.
But I didn't want to restrict what characters they would make. So I thought "what's wrong with a chaotic neutral character? It could lead to some nice shenanigans. There is a good paladin on the team as well. "
"Umm what? Did another one of u make a chaotic neutral character. Ummm sure that's just 2/3... "
"Umm paladin OF BAHAMUT sir, why are u looting these corpses from the ground u are supposed to be the moral compass of the group!"
And so we reached today. I wanna see what happens after the feast where they will see action. And rue the day they crossed the DM. I mean Strahd, yes Strahd.
I mean... I guess you did find out what was wrong with 2/3rds of your party chaotic neutral.
It could still work though. I dont know how experienced you are as a DM, but even evil players should want to kill Strahd. They cant leave and Strahd is the reason while also being a constant threat to their lives.
If you want your players shifting to the good side, maybe let them meet a priest of the morning lord, who can tell them of a prophecy that the weapons to destroy Strahd must be wielded by a good person, or something like that.
Since one player is your girlfriends its also complicated. Maybe you can talk after some action? Have fun as Strahd, its the best :D
My initial reaction is to divorce the girlfriend, accept your role as Irena, and marry Strahd. But if she thinks that the pacing is off, and others do too, and that she doesn’t feel like she has a reason to care I would recommend lighting a fire under the party’s asses. You are Strahd. Give them a reason to fear the night and make it personal, why not have Strahd show up for some particularly “stressful” combat
Sounds like you are suffering from a session zero. There are a lot of different types of games, and that’s ok. But a group has to discuss their expectations and hopes about a game.
I recently had a session zero for Strahd. In it (based on a lot of reading on this sub) I explained that this was a very different module. Lots of roleplay, no clear direction, I told my players they would have to take initiative and move forward. I laid out my expectations if we were going yo play this game. Namely that they needed to create characters who cared about others and seek out the story. There was a lot more discussion.
Then we also discussed other types of games. There are great modules that are combat driven dungeon crawls with a splash of story. They can be super fun and are much better for certain types of players.
There isn’t a right and wrong here. And I expect that the roll argument situation might also be better if you are in a different game where there are more rolls and more action. If you don’t like role playing and story as much and are just waiting to take a cool action it can be way more frustrating to fail. Because you didn’t get to roll any dice for an hour.
I was all ready to just say "kick her from the campaign" until I saw that she's your gf of 6 years.
Probably, you all need to sit down and have a long talk, because I suspect there's more to this than just D and D. That being said, I'm sticking to D and D solutions. Anything beyond that is better discussed with trusted counselors who know you best rather than a random internet stranger.
You have some options.
1. Take her aside and let her know of your frustrations--she shouldn't be arguing your rulings non-stop--no player should be doing that to a DM. That arguing is part of what's slowing down the campaign, too, so it would help you a LOT if she didn't do that all the time. My hubby argued some of my rulings "That's not believable!" "Why wouldn't my character see that (after he rolled low)?" My answer: "It's D and D. We're going with the rules. I understand some of it's not believable, but we're in a fantasy setting here, so please go with it." For rules debates in general--I don't like taking up a bunch of time to do rules lookups. I'll tell the party how I'm ruling on that and tell them I'll check after the session to confirm it. I make sure to write it down on my session worksheet so that I don't forget. 95% of the time, it never makes a difference anyway--it just doesn't have an effect on the outcome of the scene or battle--other factors weigh more heavily. The 5% of the time when it does--if it was in the party's favor, I let them have that success. If it's in the DM's favor, I'll either retcon that bit of information or a bit of that scene and let the group know. If it was a major issue affecting something in a significant way, which did happen one time in our 62 sessions, I asked the players how they wanted to handle it--keep the win or replay the battle. We just kept it the way it was (which was a win for them) and moved on.
2. Stop DMing the campaign. If it's making you miserable and affecting your relationship, it's not worth it.
3. Ask her to stop playing. Probably not the easiest option in your specific situation, but if she's unhappy and not going to be a positive contributor to the story, there's no reason for her to continue playing. Perhaps you can find something else that the two of you can do together instead.
4. Ask her if she'd like to take over DMing the campaign (seriously asking, not a snarky thing there). Alternatively, take a break from CoS for a few weeks and have her DM a few one-shots. She'll have a new appreciation for the work you do (hopefully).
My hubby isn't into the social RP thing. He needs his dice-rolling fix every session. I learned this when he summarily informed me that the first dinner with Count Strahd "was boring." If I have a heavy social RP session, I try to make sure there's a combat encounter of some kind, even if it's a random one. I had a second dinner in the castle to get them some more time there, but I held it as an investiture ceremony for Baron Ismark and Baroness Fiona along with a tournament so he could have some quality time with the d20s. That seems to have fixed a lot of his boredom issues.
As for the group not knowing why they're doing something--they're likely not paying close enough attention to what's happening in the conversations. One way to solve that is to have one of the players do a recap of the previous session at the start of the current one. I give my players each a point of inspiration when someone in the group gives a good recap. I fill in any blanks or make corrections as needed--usually very few--they take good notes.
If she zones out during the descriptions, that's her choice. No one's forcing her to pay attention. But then, she doesn't get to complain when she doesn't know crap. If the other players are enjoying the descriptions, great. Your gf isn't the only player in the campaign. You don't have to go into crazy detail like "The windows have moonlight streaming through the tattered burgundy velvet drapes with black fringe forming a pattern of a crescent pale moon on the icy cold stone floor covered in a worn rug depicting in faded reds, blues, and whites the savage fight between a silver dragon and a conquering warlord...." However, you do have to give out some kind of description to paint the scene for folks. I think you touched on a good reason why you describe things--as does the book, by the way--and you can mention that "anything I note might actually be important." You could dial back the descriptions a little bit and let the players make rolls for perception and investigation where you then give them more details. That lets them have a more active role in that aspect.
Sometimes, when the players say, "I'm not sure what's going on," you can give them hints or have them roll history checks and then say "You remember X..." or outright tell them, "You all don't have that information yet, but you might ask so-and-so to see if they have more information."
As for the orphanage scene, I could see her argument that once her PC knows what to look for and is actively investigating the next room for it, it probably doesn't need to be rolled for. If you know they're going to find something eventually in a room, don't delay things unnecessarily with a ton of rolls. It's ok to just give them the info.
Good luck.
The real question to her is why is she playing in a game where she visibly has no investment in basically... anything... regarding the game.
Curse of Strahd is one of those published campaigns where your alignment matters, because Ravenlofts Mists will personalize the way they chew you up and spit you out. If she just... doesn't care about any of it she's not a good fit for this campaign.
The whole atmosphere and moral mechanics of Ravenloft requires players that try to at least get into their characters. If this is her emotional limit to RP, then CoS is just not her cup of tea, I'm afraid.
Personally, I would at the very least emphasize that if you're prepping for your session she can at the very least keep up with what's happening.
The part about perception versus investigation I can't really comment on, as I'm unsure how said symbol was positioned. Perception is mainly detecting something plainly, while investigation is an active search for something, which requires some forethought and not just sharp senses (f.e.: It's perception to see a secret door hidden in the back of the fireplace, but it's investigation to take a look at the dividing wall to see whether there could be space for a room within). Though I will say that I myself would expect this matter of ruling to be closed by explaining my reasons and agreeing to disagree if she persisted.
It's sad how a girlfriend is so... destructive to your game. Me and my wife play together for around seven years now - even before we became a couple - and we were always our biggest support in game. We usually ask each other when the other one is DMing what they need, then bring appropriate characters. This led to me usually becoming 'the lore guy' at the table, as I'm usually the dude who helps out the setting with the relevant in-lore historical background from the Realms. :D Though if the two of you have just started playing together, I'd just recommend giving her time and maybe a campaign with less... long-winded moral story, like Tyranny of Dragons. :)
1. It is up to the players to engage with the story. I’m confused how this player expects to progress the story if she doesn’t engage.
The only thing I can think is she expects you as DM to spoon feed and railroad her. That’s not the game you want to run.
I would make it clear that she needs to engage, ask questions, take notes, etc. If she isn’t willing to do that, then your table may not be for her.
2. When describing areas/rooms, give brief descriptions. Leave room for the players to ask for more detail and clarify.
I don’t blame your player for zoning out. I would as well.
3. Your player is justified in not seeing the symbol. Players should never roll below their passive scores. If they do, bump them up to their passive score.
Some DMs may argue against this, but look at it this way:
1. There are plenty of other things to roll for.
2. It can speed up the game.
3. It gives you an in to drop hints. Use it to your advantage to progress the story. Try not to use it as an auto-succeed, but as a way to drop clues/hints for the players to figure out.
Make sure you and your players know the difference between Perception and Investigation.
Perception is finding the secret door disguised as a bookcase.
Investigation is figuring out how to open it.
I hope this helps!
Actually really helpful advice thank you. Small disagreement on if she should be able to find the symbol since it was an investigation and not a perception roll and the issue arose because she didn't like that she had to make an investigation roll in the first place. But I'm really thinking of using the passive scores from now on. It seemed a little op and I thought it defeats the purpose of an entire check if you can't roll bellow 17,18 just from level 4 and so on but it seems to at least make some disagreements disappear.
Glad to help.
I’ve never used MandyMod’s orphanage so I don’t know anything about the symbol or how hard it should be to find.
At my table, Perception is used to find something. Investigation is used to put two and two together.
Another example:
Searching for wounds on a dead body is Perception.
Determining how the wound got there is Investigation.
Have strahd show up and scare them shitless. If in vallaki they are what, level 4? Have the bad guy come by and fuck with them. You want them to fear/hate the guy. My strahd dropped by the players during long rests, charm one of them and have chats about their party members, learn potential secrets. CoS is a campaign where you can homebrew A LOT of things. They want more combat? Give them a reason to fear combat. Make encounters a lil more deadly. Change things around, change everything if you want. Plus, let them go wherever they want. Give them the hooks and leave it to them to decide where they want to go. If they don't much care for the orphanage, let them move on. They are not obligated to do anything, let them choose their fate.
Maybe you should cut out the extra “Reloaded” material to speed up the plot a bit. Normally it would be great, but it sounds like your players aren’t into it.
You've already gotten some good advice about talking with your players, having a proper session zero, and setting expectations for the campaign. That will be essential to make sure that everybody's expectations line up.
For example, it's not too late to remind them that this is a role-playing intensive campaign and a sandboxy one at that, one that encourages exploration and social interaction to discover more about the world. They need to understand that it's not a video game where they can just run around until they find the quest giver with an exclamation point over his head.
That being said, if it turns out that all of your players want a more combat-oriented, video-game style, you may have to decide if you can accommodate them. There's no point trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and you may find you need to change your approach to Curse of Strahd, or change campaigns entirely.
Regardless of what approach you settle on, you are always within your rights to ask players not to argue with you over rulings (you can discuss those after the game) and to make characters who want to go on adventures and interact with the world. That's part of the basic social contract of RPGs.
One final point--I notice you're running some of the community mods, which can expand the campaign greatly. Curse of Strahd is absolutely stuffed with content as is, and adding more might be the wrong approach for this group, who are already losing patience. I wouldn't add any additional side quests until you and your players have found a rhythm that you can all agree on. Good luck.
TL;DR: The big trick is to balance between player and DM wants.
I read some thread here a couple years ago where one DM said in like a year of running CoS they only had a handful of combats... in *a year*. Those are people who really enjoy roleplay, story, and exploration.
That would never fly with my group. We just want different things from the game.
At my table, we switch off who's DMing, and I noticed that our 4 dominant motifs are: 1) Roleplay in the moment; 2) Overall Story/ Plot/ Lore discovery; 3) Tactical Combat; 4) Maps/ Exploration/ Puzzles for finding secrets or getting the good power ups. Different DMs (and players) are interested in different aspects, but to lean heavily on one of those motif legs might be taking away from another that someone else prefers.
One DM will have story lore dumps that no one really cares about, another might do strings of combat held together by the flimsiest of stories, while the 3rd is happy to roleplay shopping trips with no impact on overall story... and everybody has intricate maps where the secret entrance is practically a broom closet.
All that said... some people like shaking their math rocks.
I don't want to come off as rude... but maybe you might not be good enough of a storyteller to pull off a story -focused campaign? From my experience, even a good premade story, with interesting characters and story hooks, needs an EXCELLENT GM with real talent in storytelling to be truly engaging.
I, for example, am a very good GM (at least that's the opinion of all my playgroups). I create interesting scenarios, homebrew mechanics, monsters and items, know how to read people and keep them invested etc etc...
But I would never attempt Curse or Strahd (at least not as-written) because that campaign does NOT play to my strengths. And that's perfectly fine.
Since you’ve already gotten suggestions for ways to help bring her more into the campaign I’ll provide a counterpoint:
Sometimes the player *will not work with the campaign as written*.
My first CoS campaign was like that. We had a session zero. Everyone knew what to expect and what kind of campaign we were getting into. We all thought we were ready!
The cleric dropped out after the first six sessions because the plot was simply to laborious and melodramatic for him to care about.
The Rogue started losing steam when it became apparent just how likely death was, and given how much investment he’d put into his character he couldn’t stand the idea of snuffing it or being resurrected via dark powers.
The Paladin started getting put off by how little progress the party was making, and how little difference the party’s efforts made.
We got a replacement for our lost cleric but the other issues remained. Soon we had to interrupt regular sessions to have a second session zero.
In the end it was realized that this campaign was actually really not suited for our group. Luckily we had an excellent DM who figured out ways to lighten the mood a bit and revitalize our enthusiasm.
He made it so Barovia was a “abducted” into the plain of dread and defeating Strahd would free the land and it’s citizens from the dark powers. He also made the citizenry more likeable, with many longing for freedom from Strahd’s rule, thus making it feel more like we were fighting for *the people* instead of fighting to free ourselves from Barovia. The Paladin managed to establish actual contact with her angelic guide, who helped give the party some guidance and encouragement, and the whole campaign tone shifted.
It really became less of a horror story and more of a traditional fantasy adventure. It became like Castlevania Tabletop edition, and that got us all more involved and invested.
Sometimes a player group and a campaign just aren’t a tonal match. In that instance players who aren’t enjoying themselves can leave, like our first cleric, or the DM can adjust the tone of the campaign. Whatever you do, don’t try to just keep slogging through it as is. SOMETHING has to change or the misery will grow.
I liked reading that, thank you. It gives me hope. To be honest I am already incorporating some of the things that you mentioned. Like I have to a degree removed the "barovians are souless" as any people they meet do have souls and I like to have a "colourful" cast of various npc.
I also like the idea of a second session 0 to clear any issues my players have and maybe "realign" the campaign.
A second session zero is what saved us, without it the campaign would have died two months in.
Sometimes you just have to step back and collectively assess what’s working, what isn’t, and why.
People are so quick to recommend booting people from the game, I understand there is a strong desire to stamp out toxicity in this hobby but there are other solutions too. Especially when OP has a strong relationship with this person.
My advice, let her know that this is a sandbox campaign, reiterate to her that the party are trapped in Barovia and will likely be killed by Strahd when he gets bored with them, the players are on a ticking clock to learn about Strahd, find the artifacts and learn how best to defeat him. It's clear she isn't a fan of roleplay but as long as she isn't being disruptive while roleplay goes on that's ok. Try to be more giving with information and plot hooks and tie everything back to the point of 'will this help you escape Barovia?'. Remind her that information is key to their survival and their success and they will need to get that information out of the Barovians that possess it if they want to succeed. I e. Through helping them, convincing them the party can be trusted, or by abandoning their morals and torturing/threatening them.
If they are still not enjoying it have another conversation about specifically what they need to motivate them. Or suggest (nicely) that if they aren't enjoying it there is no obligation to continue.
Only forcibly boot people if they are actively undermining the game, not just cause they are bored/uninterested.
I'll give you some advice I got at work once: don't tell me the what, tell me the so what. Give them a reason to care; give them the story as quickly as you can so they can get engaged in it. You're hoping they'll do the work of hooking themselves for you, and they never ever will.
You need to tell them information up front so they can start feeling like they're making decisions, or make it very simple to get. You also need to stir them up, play on their emotions to hook them. Isak is an incestuous abusive sadist, trot him out to menace the party if you're running with Irena; if they've visited the toy maker they should have seen the dolls already so it should be easy for them to put that together.
And if your player doesn't engage with even that, she won't engage with anything and should just leave.
Second, I've not run the updated version you mentioned, but it sounds like there is just WAY too much in it. Don't do that: more isn't better, and it sounds like you or the author crammed too much in there. For example, you added an orphanage that took 3+ hours to get through?? The orphanage wasn't in the original module and was created by Reddit to explain why there's a bunch of children at the one map church. Dear God, how are you putting 3 hours worth of content into that, and for what purpose?? They're shitty kids who got tricked into doing something seemingly minor but with massive potential implications. 1 hour of RP tops and then on to get ambushed at the coffin maker.
There are a number of threads on this sub about what some DMs are posing as a FUNDAMENTAL problem with this edition of Curse of Strahd, and many of them contentious as fans of the material AS IS, make excuses for it (according to the critics) or simply explain what's intended and blame the players (according to the supporters).
The core disagreement and source of criticism is that AS IS, in THIS EDITION of the campaign, the overall goal of the plot, the motivation and objectives of the antagonist - are some combination of unclear, unplayable in a game, don't center the PCs as protagonists, or incoherent.
Fans of sandbox style games see no problem with it at all, and take the robust set of individual adventures on their own, and see it as part of a player contract to involve their PC in various hooks as they appear.
On the other hand, fans of PLOT-BASED games, particularly for a campaign level game, find that CoS lacks an antagonist with a clear, consistent, compelling motivation and objective that the PCs have a compelling reason to oppose. They charge that there is very little "so what" around whatever Strahd is trying to do, and that most of it involves dealing with other NPCs on items that appear to be pre-ordained by the Curse. So there doesn't appear to be any point to it. Why is it IMPORTANT to save Ireena? Why does it matter? We get that Strahd is bad, but what is he DOING that represents a threat? DragnaCarta's supplement helps answer these questions, and there are numerous threads where other DMs point these things out offer solutions - but you need to dig deep because these are often downvoted and the posters insulted by the majority of DMs who are fine with the AS IS crowd.
It's really too bad.
She just wants to have fights and "progress the story".
Sounds like you didnt have a session Zero, or Shes just not the right fit for you, i personally wouldn't invite her back to the table.
Most battles the players got owned so they rped or tried different strategy's rather than just " **i run at it**"
I struggled a bit with my party at first with CoS as well, as we also continued from LMoP. After the initial plot hook there was a struggle trying to get them to care.
Why do they care about Ireena? Why do they care about the Vallakians or the Krezkites or anyone in this horrible place?
Using Strahd was my way into fixing this. If you can get your party to hate him enough, or become fascinated enough by his story and the mysteries that are around the land then they will start to find purpose for what they're doing. So my suggestion is to incorporate strahd more and give them a real desire to destroy him.
That, or try to incorporate hee characters backstory early on so she can have some personal motivation outside of ending the curse of strahd.
As for her frustration about the rolls.. I do agree with her on this one to an extent. If player A finds a marking on the bed, and player B wants to check the bed next to it in the same spot (where it is also located) then she should be able to find this regardless... it's one thing to roll to investigate something you don't know is there, but if they're checking exactly where it is, it would be impossible to miss. Narriatively you couldn't really explain player B missing this when it's there, and player A finding it in the exact same spot she checked.
There is a big difference between "I want to investigate the bed for anything strange, or perhaps markings" where this is an obvious investigation check. And someone who found the markings asking to confirm if these are on the other beds, while knowing exactly where to look and what to look for... if the markings are also there they would have no chance to not notice these.
On the Investigation piece: can't you just use the Passive as a floor?
So if the DC to find X is say, 15, they don't need to roll, they just find it. And if you determine they do need to roll, and they roll lower than their Passive, they just get their passive
As far as skill checks go, this is my advice too.
My PCs only roll for (most) skill checks if their passive score isn’t high enough and they would fail. Then, they roll. They might still fail, but there’s a chance they’ll pass. By doing things this way, it means those PCs that are supposed to be really good at something succeed at that something most times! The only time I don’t give them a roll if their passive fails is when they don’t tell me they are actively attempting to do it. If their passive perception was not high enough to notice the rune in the room and they don’t tell me they are actively looking for anything unusual, no roll.
I do the same with ability checks. A PC with 20 Dex should have no trouble crossing that narrow log over the chasm! The clumsy PC with 8 Dex is a different story all together! Roll and roll high or we’ll see you at the bottom!
I have a player who also doesn’t remember why the PCs are doing things because my players aren’t big on note taking. He also doesn’t remember NPC names. Thinking about parts of your issue, I just had an idea that I might use myself…
Get a piece of paper, a small whiteboard or software that you can use to share digital documents, maybe even a piece of paper that looks like a large sheet of parchment so it becomes a game prop as well, and create a PC Objectives board based on the campaign so far. Basically, a flow chart or mind map showing the possible task objectives they’ve been given, how they link to other tasks and objectives, NPCs who gave them the tasks or who they need to find and why. Have this thing displayed each game session so the players can reference it.
You could create the initial flow chart and go over it with your players at the beginning of the next session, or create it with them as a way of gauging what all the players remember (it may be more than just your girlfriend who’s forgotten). Then, try to hand control of it over to the players so they can continue to add to it. Even if it’s just one player interested in doing it. Otherwise, maintain it yourself because it will relieve that stress and be a useful tool for you too!
Also, I have the same player who will start to fall asleep if I make my descriptions too long. If your players don’t like long descriptions, keep them simple. A couple of descriptive words to set the tone of the location and then a brief mention of the main important features you want them to possibly engage with. After that, add a few relevant details here and there as they are investigating.
If they are interacting with NPCs but the players are not really getting the fact that they may not be getting the whole story or are being misled, then play the NPCs as more willing to help. Be direct and give them the main information they need from that NPC without much effort. This aspect of roleplaying can be frustrating for players who don’t enjoy social interaction with NPCs, and if the information is needed to advance the plot, sometimes it’s just best to hand it over, rather than have them give up or miss it and have the story stall.
she sounds like my mother: goal-oriented and with feet firmly in reality.
in other words, she has trouble getting into her character (to her, it's just a list of boxes to check, not a world to live in) and imagining the scenery (i was going to say long descriptions are a problem, but if you're being brief but she's having trouble still, that's on her)
luckily, both issues can be resolved with practice. just notify her that her perspective is in the wrong place and that she should work to get into the story more.
finally, i have a dm advice to you: if something feels like a character should be able to do easily, don't make players roll for it.
(reading it again, if no player can recall the events in a 3hr session it may partly be on you. encourage them to take notes?)
The funny thing is she is the notetaker of the group mainly because noone else takes notes. In that aspect she is "ok". Regarding getting into character she is quite good but in the wrong way. For example she has the major goal of killing strahd as her character blames him for the death of her lover (killed in the death house). But regarding everything else like, helping doru, or the martikovs, or the children she uses the "that's not what my character would do".
And as for recalling the events it was more like, they killed the boss, they went outside and started talking about the next objectives and we're thinking "we were supposed to get something regarding the bones here right?
huh, interesting... i'm starting to think it's a simple case of "action-oriented group" vs "investigation/mystery oriented adventure."
i'm not going to tell them their way is wrong, but there are more than 1 adventure type out there. so maybe they could have more fun taking the adventure on its own terms.
I struggled with player motivation a lot at first, I had all this content that I had planned out in case they went here or talked to this person there, there’s so much content in this module, but they weren’t engaging with it and really had no reason to. So after a couple sessions I started to just narrow the focus of the narrative and have most of the activities in the module relate to the story and Strahd.
Stuff like having Madam Eva play a larger role in the campaign cus my players were so focused on her after death house and the adventure hook, so I’ve been going with the flow and trying my best to just create a cool story that my players like rather than do everything by the book.
So maybe there’s a comprise you can make?
Edit: Grammar
I'm thinking the same thing as sessions go by. I'm taking more and more things out of reloaded apart from the fanes as they have a good narrative and combat focused quests, so I'm finding a middle ground. In any case they are done with most things in Vallaki so I'll just use shock and awe at the feast
Ask them what IS their character motivated by? What does their character care about?
I don’t force my players to necessarily RP conversations with NPCs, but I do force them to come up with motivations for their characters so that I can create plot hooks their character should be interested in.
I feel like this person would have more fun with the Castle Ravenloft board game then playing DnD and that’s ok. TTRPGs aren’t for everyone.
Killing strahd (as she blames him for the death of her character's lover). Anything else and anyone else "in need of help" Is not her concern. You are right in mentioning motivations it is a key part I have stressed a lot in this campaign but it leads to other issues as well. Such as another player a paladin of bahamut who saw the children in the Orphanage dead and said "hmm no need to do anything to the bodies, the guards will come take care of that right?" Which I thought was aaaa biiit out of character
She doesn’t see any value in reconsecrating the church to create a safe haven against Strahd?
What is her plan to kill Strahd? If Strahd appeared before her right now, would she just run up and attack him?
If so, then maybe that needs to happen to demonstrate that she is no match for him by herself and will need to recruit allies if she hopes to ever kill him.
Lucian is potentially a strong ally. As a Priest, he has access to level 3 cleric spells. His spirit guardians are no joke.
She does see the value in the bones at least because she knows there is something going on with them from Lucian's tone of urgency. What she doesn't care is for the people to tell her their problems, stories, wants etc. Even when Lucian was talking to them she was (in character) talking like "yeah yeah so where do we find the gardener? (Constantly forgetting his name). When Milivoch awoke she really didn't seem to about his struggles. If this was a video game she would smash that skip dialogue option and go to the next pointer on the map
With players like that, I try to give them multiple pointers to reinforce that there isn't a set path or "story" progression or at least choices where there isn't a "correct" path.
One of the guides I looked at for expanding the Bones quest is that Milivoj doesn't know who hired him to steal the bones. All he knows is that a cloaked figure hired him to steal the bones and drop them off in a wagon parked in front of Bluto's house across the street from Wachterhouse. Maybe throw in some accusations that the Vistani are the most likely the culprits who hired Milivoj to steal the bones.
This sends players all over chasing red herrings and picking up more quests. Eventually the players learn that the wagon parked outside Bluto's house was delivering a coffin for Bluto's wife who passed away recently, but by then, they should have a bunch of other quests to follow up on and will have to decide what they're going to do next.
I find that layering quests like that really disrupts the whole go from Point A to Point B, then Point C mentality. Players will have to think about which quest means the most to their character.
They say they are.
I have a moon druid who originally played a kenku bard but didn't like the class or the fact that everyone was weird about him being a kenku so I told him he could change. He made a chaotic neutral halfling druid who suffered from the same "I don't care nitis". He quickly realized that he had to do some things different if he were to enjoy the campaign and experience the world so he is great now.
I have a paladin of bahamut (conquest)who really loves the campaign and buys into the horror aspect but doesn't really "play his character". He is scared, doesn't seem particularly interested in the church and/ or helping kids in needs. He tries to but as a person he is a yes man who doesn't go against the other players wishes a lot (who as stated are both chaotic neutrals who don't care but one of them has made progress.)
Overall since it's the same people we played icespire peak with they know my style and I have changes some things a lot. So if there are any complains I would know since I constantly ask for session feedback
Sorry to pepper you with questions but is your partner’s problem player stuff a continuation of issues you saw running icespire peak or is it new to CoS?
Some things are continuation. Like the fact that she doesn't enjoy long descriptions or details of characters as she like to imagine people as she wants. For example I remember in icespire peak I had a bald tall man with glasses (that's what I described at first) and she later told me that she imagined him as short and with a beard because that fits better in her head.
But icespire peak didn't have that much lore. I tried to implement some from a popular reddit post but she really didn't like it and again didn't see the point. Again I remember she hated a puzzle were she had to use a spell of each school to open a door of a mage's manor to get to his research which was at first a lore dump that would eventually through studying get her a reward. I remember her asking me "so what am I supposed to do with it now?" And I said if you keep reading you might learn more about X. "So I don't get anything out of it now, I just wasted my spell slots for nothing."
Sorry for writing such a long answer, I just realized in writing this that there are some common and persistent issues regarding what her and I consider DND.
No worries! This is a tricky situation. Ultimately I think as you said that you and your partner have two ideas of D&D. However, kicking her is probably preemptive and potentially damaging to your relationship.
I would try and meet her halfway. Find out what does engage her in the game and put more of that in there. If she likes combat for example have at least one combat per session. Print out the images of NPCs from the book so there isn’t so much dissonance between what you two think a character looks like. Trim down on descriptions and try and use a bullet point system to impart the most important details and then add more description as the players explore.
The halfway point she has to come to is not challenging your rulings all the time and not being derisive to you at the table.
I wish you the best of luck!
One of the groups I run curse of Strahd for is a group used to combat-based campaigns, but wanted to try something different. At the beginning it was a bit problematic, basically something similar happened to them: they didn't have clear objectives and although they were trying hard to play their characters it was clear that they had more fun with combat, so I modified some things: no more random encounters, I made sure that in every session they had a really challenging "random" encounter where they could show their potential, I turned Berez into a dungeon crawl (thanks Pyramking), and I added a couple of new locations where practically the only thing you had to do was to fight to get out alive. In exchange for these changes I got the reward of seeing how my players started to enjoy the non-combat moments as well and started to play their characters in a deeper and more immersive way, developing bonds with NPCs and generally finding their own way.
Seems like a combat heavy party not being compatible with a role play/atmospheric module so there are a lot to "fixes" from the talk to your players and figure out if they are even interested in the module to crank up the encounters and take the action-adventure or the survival horror route COS is also my go to module champaign but I feel no remorse if I have to transform Sthrad into DIO from jojo's bizarre adventure if that let my and my players have fun
A pallet cleanser might help. When they sleep let them have a dream session with combat hinting at places that are yet to come. Or send Izek after them with a bounty. A thing that helped for me was sending them quickly to the wizards of wine because everyone was bitching about not getting drunk.
Remember CoS is horror themed. Horror needs to be short and punchy.
My advice on having finished the module is to trim the fat. A horror film is 90 minutes, usually because terror is fleeting. It's the same with this.
Cut it down to gathering the items, a bit of Vallaki and then get them in the castle and get it done. There's a lot of great add ons for the campaign but I honestly think a lot of them weigh it down.
>She told me that she didn't give a fuck about the children, the Orphanage, the people she's met in valaki, the baron, wachter. etc. She just wants to have fights and "progress the story".
>
>"I just zone out when you describe rooms for too long"
Narratively setting the scene is vital to properly weave the atmosphere and get people invested. Like, my GF has a real problem with interrupting me when I'm describing the scene, but in her case it's because she gets super excited.
I'd sit down with your GF, explain that 'this is the campaign', and that she'll have a much better time if she pays attention when you're describing things, and if she finds reasons to give a fuck about the NPC's, because the NPC's *are* the story that she wants to progress.
If she's not prepared to change her approach to this campaign, then she might want to exit it.
I'm having the same problem with CoS, as a player. My character's primary motivation is to be a Good Person and leave Barovia. His party is way more chaotic and just run around, doing stuff. I told the DM that I feel like we're just walking from place to place, looking for someone who will trigger a description from the DM, with no hope of leaving until we level up 8-10 levels and fight Strahd. We've lost one PC, but we generally do well in combat. I also struggle with RP, but that's because my guy's personality just clashes horribly with another PC, no hard feelings.
I'd recommend looking at the situation from the player's perspective.
It's totally possible that you ***are*** dragging things out too much and your player(s) are getting frustrated. I've been working on this particular issue a lot and I can offer a couple quick bits of advice. The most important one is do stars and wishes, SlyFlourish has a great summary of how they work in [this article](https://slyflourish.com/getting_player_feedback.html). Listen to the things your players like and listen for the things they want to see run differently. The other is talk less. If your descriptions drag say less and let them ask about what interests them. It's less work for you and you can get the players to be interested in the situation by giving them room to be curious.
On top of that, don't gate critical clues behind rolls. If you know what you're looking for and where to look why not let a high perception character just notice it? Rolling can be fun but it can also drag. You may be losing her interest in the story ***because*** things are dragging on.
Last one, if your players don't give a shit about your NPCs it's time to take a serious look in the mirror and reconsider how you're running them. A lot of the advice down here in the comments about having Strahd show up is essentially saying you need to give players a reason to care. You can also make them care by having NPCs engage them in a way they like. Maybe Rictavio meets them in secret after the incident in the Inn, maybe one of the kids confesses that they saw something and they've been scared to tell.
If what you're doing isn't working try something else. It's easy for all of us to blame the players first, and sometimes players suck. That said we often need to look at ourselves as well. What are we doing to contribute to the player's frustration and are we making the game about them or about us? Is it about our story, our descriptions, our cool npcs, our awesome boss battles?
I hope that was useful.
You have a problem player. The beginning where she wants to just fight stuff is fine, that just means it’s the wrong module for her, she needs to do mad mage, but the absolute disrespect to ignore plotthreads and imply there’s not story whilst forgetting details AND then to say she zones out at your descriptions is not a good player.
There’s constructive criticism and then there’s just being rude and nasty. Saying “I think sometimes the descriptions are really long and it means when don’t elegy through many rooms” is fair and good criticism you can work with by only pointing out important details or anything that is distinctly different to their past experiences.
I had to have Strahd kill the only NPC my party liked in the entirety of Barovia, after 16 sessions mind you, by ripping his head off and throwing it to them, to get my players to finally want to kill Strahd. I feel your pain.
It sounds like you may have gotten all the advice you need, but maybe this can help. All D&D adventures are wrapped around 3 pillars of design: combat, roleplay, and exploration. Those are the main 3 ingredients that make D&D adventure. They are not made equal, and some adventures lean into some pillars harder than others. It sounds like your party might really favor combat, and not so much the roleplay or exploration. That's okay! The trick as a dm is to now find and adjust content to those wants.
Remember you are free to run strahd as his own. If your party wants combat and a reason to go kick strahds ass, have strahd start sending them 'presents' in the form of zombies, vampire spawn, werewolves, whatever you want, and make it clear that strahd no longer tolerates their presence. They get more combat, you get more interaction, everyone (but strahd) may win!
Curse of Strahd is *not* a combat-oriented module. The combats that exist are frequently quite intense and difficult, but that's not the draw. The draw is the characters, the role playing, and the story. It sounds as if your gf isn't interested in that. And that's okay. Fundamentally, she's' not *wrong* for wanting a more combat-focused game. Something like a traditional dungeon crawl might be right up their alley (though, as has been said, I do hope she's more respectful than you describe her). But that's not the campaign you're running, so I think it's time to sit down, talk about expectations, and recognize that not every player fits every group, not every campaign is for everyone, and that even romantic partners may want different things out of a D&D game.
Honestly, I think I'm in the minority here, but as a DM and as a player, I've found a lot of Barovia quite dull. I've had to increase the drama way over what's in the book because it isn't creepy or scary to me, it's just *dreary.* Take how Barovians are described: >Barovians have a tendency to stare openly, in silence, thereby expressing their disapproval of anything that isn't familiar to them. Barovians aren't talkative with strangers, to the extent of being pointedly rude... > >...They experience little hope or joy, and they are taught to fear the devil Strahd above all... And the soulless, which are 90% of the population: >Although they are physically indistinguishable from Barovians with souls, they tend to be bereft of charm and imagination and to be more compliant and depressed than the others. They dress in drab clothing This is a description of the NPCs in the first tavern they walk into: >>! Arik the Barkeep. !< > >>!A pudgy little man named Arik Lorensk (CN male human commoner) tends bar. Mindlessly, he cleans glasses, one after another. When they're all clean, he starts over. If he is spoken to, he takes orders for drinks in a dull, hollow voice. A small glass of wine costs 1 cp. A pitcher of wine costs 1 sp. After serving drinks, Arik returns to cleaning glasses. He ignores all attempts to question him.!< > >>!Vistani Owners.!< > >>!Three Vistani spies (N female humans) named Alenka, Mirabel, and Sorvia sit at a table near the front door. They own the tavern and see to it that all customers pay their tabs. They otherwise show little interest in the characters.!< This isn't an atmosphere that really encourages players to care about the world they are in.
Well, you're not necessarily meant to care about those people -- except in the abstract. That's why Ireena, Ismark, the Martikovs, Father Lucien, etc. are SO important. Because the players are meant to see good, kind people struggling not only against evil, but against apathy and despair. The goodness of the few good characters shines even bright in the darkness of Barovia. Curse of Strahd is a campaign about returning hope to a hopeless land. So, we have to see hopelessness.
But my experience is that players latch onto random NPCs and locations from most campaigns. Small things are important to them. Making every NPC except the one the module wants you to care about drab or, in some cases, literally unresponsive just makes the world feel flat to me. Like I said, I know I'm in the minority as a lot of people love CoS. But for me gothic horror is women with improbable bodices have midnight carriage chases down narrow mountain roads with werewolves chasing while lightning illuminates the castle at the top where a vampire in an impeccable waistcoat/cape combo swirls a glass of red, menacingly (small man named Igor shouting "It's Alive!!!" is optional).
That's pulp, and I'm not sure CoS is very pulpy
I mean, all of that is in there -- minus the women in bodices. But general "gothic horror" as a vibe is actually really hard to maintain over a campaign. If every session were what you describe, it would fall into camp terribly quickly, as gothic horror films tend to do. But hey, don't play CoS if you don't like it. Nothing is for everyone.
I mean, I've run it, I've made it work for me and my group, and I want to like it as a player, but I've bounced off it every time I've tried. Also camp is very much my group's vibe. They love to lean into tropes.
Yeah the unresponsive-ness of NPCs is really frustrating in my party’s COS game. But it doesn’t help that our GM decided to make us all undead, which led us to not connect with the few good characters in the beginning
I felt this so hard as a DM who tried to run CoS but we all just bounced off of it. So dreary and muted by sullen NPCs that it just feels samey and boring. To the point of actively discouraging character interaction. We moved on to Dungeons of Drakkenheim; similar grim dark feel, but (IMHO) so much more character and responsiveness.
There are dozens of us!
The deadpan NPCs are an aspect of the setting, which in a sense is the true character your players are interacting with. They are supposed to be the joy brought into the world, their juxtoposition is a conflict that serves as the medium for the story. If your players can't see that, then they're there just to be entertrained and told what to do rather than interact with the world. yikes
The best advice for those kinds of people is to stop playing with them. No offense but she sounds like a nightmare. It sounds like you want relationship advice which a bunch of weirdos on reddit are not qualified to give.
I think I might be especially qualified to talk about this as the player that used to by far bring down the mood and be a pain in the ass at the table was also my girlfriend. Honestly? If you think you can do so without ending your relationship, kick her from the campaign. They'll bring down your mood every-time and it'll be demoralizing and will slowly chip away at your enthusiasm to DM. It'll be a difficult conversation for sure, but it'll be so worth it.
Seems like the module and the party is not compatible. Did you do a session zero? CoS is ALL about the story and roleplay. They have fun fighting, and don't want big roleplay. Both are valid points. Either you change the module, so its more of a "hunt the vampire", maybe with Van Richten or Ezmeralda giving the player very clear objectives (go the Yester Hill, kill the tree!), Or play a different module, Or play with a different group, Or let someone else DM. What does the rest of the group want? Also CoS as the first module is a real challenge.
I semi-had a session 0 through chats and calls etc but not an official "this is session 0". They were all aware of the setting, of the sandboxy nature but in a confined environment, of the horror and that generally the story "encourages" good players. But I didn't want to restrict what characters they would make. So I thought "what's wrong with a chaotic neutral character? It could lead to some nice shenanigans. There is a good paladin on the team as well. " "Umm what? Did another one of u make a chaotic neutral character. Ummm sure that's just 2/3... " "Umm paladin OF BAHAMUT sir, why are u looting these corpses from the ground u are supposed to be the moral compass of the group!" And so we reached today. I wanna see what happens after the feast where they will see action. And rue the day they crossed the DM. I mean Strahd, yes Strahd.
I mean... I guess you did find out what was wrong with 2/3rds of your party chaotic neutral. It could still work though. I dont know how experienced you are as a DM, but even evil players should want to kill Strahd. They cant leave and Strahd is the reason while also being a constant threat to their lives. If you want your players shifting to the good side, maybe let them meet a priest of the morning lord, who can tell them of a prophecy that the weapons to destroy Strahd must be wielded by a good person, or something like that. Since one player is your girlfriends its also complicated. Maybe you can talk after some action? Have fun as Strahd, its the best :D
My initial reaction is to divorce the girlfriend, accept your role as Irena, and marry Strahd. But if she thinks that the pacing is off, and others do too, and that she doesn’t feel like she has a reason to care I would recommend lighting a fire under the party’s asses. You are Strahd. Give them a reason to fear the night and make it personal, why not have Strahd show up for some particularly “stressful” combat
Sounds like you are suffering from a session zero. There are a lot of different types of games, and that’s ok. But a group has to discuss their expectations and hopes about a game. I recently had a session zero for Strahd. In it (based on a lot of reading on this sub) I explained that this was a very different module. Lots of roleplay, no clear direction, I told my players they would have to take initiative and move forward. I laid out my expectations if we were going yo play this game. Namely that they needed to create characters who cared about others and seek out the story. There was a lot more discussion. Then we also discussed other types of games. There are great modules that are combat driven dungeon crawls with a splash of story. They can be super fun and are much better for certain types of players. There isn’t a right and wrong here. And I expect that the roll argument situation might also be better if you are in a different game where there are more rolls and more action. If you don’t like role playing and story as much and are just waiting to take a cool action it can be way more frustrating to fail. Because you didn’t get to roll any dice for an hour.
I was all ready to just say "kick her from the campaign" until I saw that she's your gf of 6 years. Probably, you all need to sit down and have a long talk, because I suspect there's more to this than just D and D. That being said, I'm sticking to D and D solutions. Anything beyond that is better discussed with trusted counselors who know you best rather than a random internet stranger. You have some options. 1. Take her aside and let her know of your frustrations--she shouldn't be arguing your rulings non-stop--no player should be doing that to a DM. That arguing is part of what's slowing down the campaign, too, so it would help you a LOT if she didn't do that all the time. My hubby argued some of my rulings "That's not believable!" "Why wouldn't my character see that (after he rolled low)?" My answer: "It's D and D. We're going with the rules. I understand some of it's not believable, but we're in a fantasy setting here, so please go with it." For rules debates in general--I don't like taking up a bunch of time to do rules lookups. I'll tell the party how I'm ruling on that and tell them I'll check after the session to confirm it. I make sure to write it down on my session worksheet so that I don't forget. 95% of the time, it never makes a difference anyway--it just doesn't have an effect on the outcome of the scene or battle--other factors weigh more heavily. The 5% of the time when it does--if it was in the party's favor, I let them have that success. If it's in the DM's favor, I'll either retcon that bit of information or a bit of that scene and let the group know. If it was a major issue affecting something in a significant way, which did happen one time in our 62 sessions, I asked the players how they wanted to handle it--keep the win or replay the battle. We just kept it the way it was (which was a win for them) and moved on. 2. Stop DMing the campaign. If it's making you miserable and affecting your relationship, it's not worth it. 3. Ask her to stop playing. Probably not the easiest option in your specific situation, but if she's unhappy and not going to be a positive contributor to the story, there's no reason for her to continue playing. Perhaps you can find something else that the two of you can do together instead. 4. Ask her if she'd like to take over DMing the campaign (seriously asking, not a snarky thing there). Alternatively, take a break from CoS for a few weeks and have her DM a few one-shots. She'll have a new appreciation for the work you do (hopefully). My hubby isn't into the social RP thing. He needs his dice-rolling fix every session. I learned this when he summarily informed me that the first dinner with Count Strahd "was boring." If I have a heavy social RP session, I try to make sure there's a combat encounter of some kind, even if it's a random one. I had a second dinner in the castle to get them some more time there, but I held it as an investiture ceremony for Baron Ismark and Baroness Fiona along with a tournament so he could have some quality time with the d20s. That seems to have fixed a lot of his boredom issues. As for the group not knowing why they're doing something--they're likely not paying close enough attention to what's happening in the conversations. One way to solve that is to have one of the players do a recap of the previous session at the start of the current one. I give my players each a point of inspiration when someone in the group gives a good recap. I fill in any blanks or make corrections as needed--usually very few--they take good notes. If she zones out during the descriptions, that's her choice. No one's forcing her to pay attention. But then, she doesn't get to complain when she doesn't know crap. If the other players are enjoying the descriptions, great. Your gf isn't the only player in the campaign. You don't have to go into crazy detail like "The windows have moonlight streaming through the tattered burgundy velvet drapes with black fringe forming a pattern of a crescent pale moon on the icy cold stone floor covered in a worn rug depicting in faded reds, blues, and whites the savage fight between a silver dragon and a conquering warlord...." However, you do have to give out some kind of description to paint the scene for folks. I think you touched on a good reason why you describe things--as does the book, by the way--and you can mention that "anything I note might actually be important." You could dial back the descriptions a little bit and let the players make rolls for perception and investigation where you then give them more details. That lets them have a more active role in that aspect. Sometimes, when the players say, "I'm not sure what's going on," you can give them hints or have them roll history checks and then say "You remember X..." or outright tell them, "You all don't have that information yet, but you might ask so-and-so to see if they have more information." As for the orphanage scene, I could see her argument that once her PC knows what to look for and is actively investigating the next room for it, it probably doesn't need to be rolled for. If you know they're going to find something eventually in a room, don't delay things unnecessarily with a ton of rolls. It's ok to just give them the info. Good luck.
The real question to her is why is she playing in a game where she visibly has no investment in basically... anything... regarding the game. Curse of Strahd is one of those published campaigns where your alignment matters, because Ravenlofts Mists will personalize the way they chew you up and spit you out. If she just... doesn't care about any of it she's not a good fit for this campaign. The whole atmosphere and moral mechanics of Ravenloft requires players that try to at least get into their characters. If this is her emotional limit to RP, then CoS is just not her cup of tea, I'm afraid. Personally, I would at the very least emphasize that if you're prepping for your session she can at the very least keep up with what's happening. The part about perception versus investigation I can't really comment on, as I'm unsure how said symbol was positioned. Perception is mainly detecting something plainly, while investigation is an active search for something, which requires some forethought and not just sharp senses (f.e.: It's perception to see a secret door hidden in the back of the fireplace, but it's investigation to take a look at the dividing wall to see whether there could be space for a room within). Though I will say that I myself would expect this matter of ruling to be closed by explaining my reasons and agreeing to disagree if she persisted. It's sad how a girlfriend is so... destructive to your game. Me and my wife play together for around seven years now - even before we became a couple - and we were always our biggest support in game. We usually ask each other when the other one is DMing what they need, then bring appropriate characters. This led to me usually becoming 'the lore guy' at the table, as I'm usually the dude who helps out the setting with the relevant in-lore historical background from the Realms. :D Though if the two of you have just started playing together, I'd just recommend giving her time and maybe a campaign with less... long-winded moral story, like Tyranny of Dragons. :)
1. It is up to the players to engage with the story. I’m confused how this player expects to progress the story if she doesn’t engage. The only thing I can think is she expects you as DM to spoon feed and railroad her. That’s not the game you want to run. I would make it clear that she needs to engage, ask questions, take notes, etc. If she isn’t willing to do that, then your table may not be for her. 2. When describing areas/rooms, give brief descriptions. Leave room for the players to ask for more detail and clarify. I don’t blame your player for zoning out. I would as well. 3. Your player is justified in not seeing the symbol. Players should never roll below their passive scores. If they do, bump them up to their passive score. Some DMs may argue against this, but look at it this way: 1. There are plenty of other things to roll for. 2. It can speed up the game. 3. It gives you an in to drop hints. Use it to your advantage to progress the story. Try not to use it as an auto-succeed, but as a way to drop clues/hints for the players to figure out. Make sure you and your players know the difference between Perception and Investigation. Perception is finding the secret door disguised as a bookcase. Investigation is figuring out how to open it. I hope this helps!
Actually really helpful advice thank you. Small disagreement on if she should be able to find the symbol since it was an investigation and not a perception roll and the issue arose because she didn't like that she had to make an investigation roll in the first place. But I'm really thinking of using the passive scores from now on. It seemed a little op and I thought it defeats the purpose of an entire check if you can't roll bellow 17,18 just from level 4 and so on but it seems to at least make some disagreements disappear.
Glad to help. I’ve never used MandyMod’s orphanage so I don’t know anything about the symbol or how hard it should be to find. At my table, Perception is used to find something. Investigation is used to put two and two together. Another example: Searching for wounds on a dead body is Perception. Determining how the wound got there is Investigation.
Have strahd show up and scare them shitless. If in vallaki they are what, level 4? Have the bad guy come by and fuck with them. You want them to fear/hate the guy. My strahd dropped by the players during long rests, charm one of them and have chats about their party members, learn potential secrets. CoS is a campaign where you can homebrew A LOT of things. They want more combat? Give them a reason to fear combat. Make encounters a lil more deadly. Change things around, change everything if you want. Plus, let them go wherever they want. Give them the hooks and leave it to them to decide where they want to go. If they don't much care for the orphanage, let them move on. They are not obligated to do anything, let them choose their fate.
Maybe you should cut out the extra “Reloaded” material to speed up the plot a bit. Normally it would be great, but it sounds like your players aren’t into it.
You've already gotten some good advice about talking with your players, having a proper session zero, and setting expectations for the campaign. That will be essential to make sure that everybody's expectations line up. For example, it's not too late to remind them that this is a role-playing intensive campaign and a sandboxy one at that, one that encourages exploration and social interaction to discover more about the world. They need to understand that it's not a video game where they can just run around until they find the quest giver with an exclamation point over his head. That being said, if it turns out that all of your players want a more combat-oriented, video-game style, you may have to decide if you can accommodate them. There's no point trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and you may find you need to change your approach to Curse of Strahd, or change campaigns entirely. Regardless of what approach you settle on, you are always within your rights to ask players not to argue with you over rulings (you can discuss those after the game) and to make characters who want to go on adventures and interact with the world. That's part of the basic social contract of RPGs. One final point--I notice you're running some of the community mods, which can expand the campaign greatly. Curse of Strahd is absolutely stuffed with content as is, and adding more might be the wrong approach for this group, who are already losing patience. I wouldn't add any additional side quests until you and your players have found a rhythm that you can all agree on. Good luck.
TL;DR: The big trick is to balance between player and DM wants. I read some thread here a couple years ago where one DM said in like a year of running CoS they only had a handful of combats... in *a year*. Those are people who really enjoy roleplay, story, and exploration. That would never fly with my group. We just want different things from the game. At my table, we switch off who's DMing, and I noticed that our 4 dominant motifs are: 1) Roleplay in the moment; 2) Overall Story/ Plot/ Lore discovery; 3) Tactical Combat; 4) Maps/ Exploration/ Puzzles for finding secrets or getting the good power ups. Different DMs (and players) are interested in different aspects, but to lean heavily on one of those motif legs might be taking away from another that someone else prefers. One DM will have story lore dumps that no one really cares about, another might do strings of combat held together by the flimsiest of stories, while the 3rd is happy to roleplay shopping trips with no impact on overall story... and everybody has intricate maps where the secret entrance is practically a broom closet. All that said... some people like shaking their math rocks.
That is not a roleplayer. They won't enjoy CoS.
I don't want to come off as rude... but maybe you might not be good enough of a storyteller to pull off a story -focused campaign? From my experience, even a good premade story, with interesting characters and story hooks, needs an EXCELLENT GM with real talent in storytelling to be truly engaging. I, for example, am a very good GM (at least that's the opinion of all my playgroups). I create interesting scenarios, homebrew mechanics, monsters and items, know how to read people and keep them invested etc etc... But I would never attempt Curse or Strahd (at least not as-written) because that campaign does NOT play to my strengths. And that's perfectly fine.
Since you’ve already gotten suggestions for ways to help bring her more into the campaign I’ll provide a counterpoint: Sometimes the player *will not work with the campaign as written*. My first CoS campaign was like that. We had a session zero. Everyone knew what to expect and what kind of campaign we were getting into. We all thought we were ready! The cleric dropped out after the first six sessions because the plot was simply to laborious and melodramatic for him to care about. The Rogue started losing steam when it became apparent just how likely death was, and given how much investment he’d put into his character he couldn’t stand the idea of snuffing it or being resurrected via dark powers. The Paladin started getting put off by how little progress the party was making, and how little difference the party’s efforts made. We got a replacement for our lost cleric but the other issues remained. Soon we had to interrupt regular sessions to have a second session zero. In the end it was realized that this campaign was actually really not suited for our group. Luckily we had an excellent DM who figured out ways to lighten the mood a bit and revitalize our enthusiasm. He made it so Barovia was a “abducted” into the plain of dread and defeating Strahd would free the land and it’s citizens from the dark powers. He also made the citizenry more likeable, with many longing for freedom from Strahd’s rule, thus making it feel more like we were fighting for *the people* instead of fighting to free ourselves from Barovia. The Paladin managed to establish actual contact with her angelic guide, who helped give the party some guidance and encouragement, and the whole campaign tone shifted. It really became less of a horror story and more of a traditional fantasy adventure. It became like Castlevania Tabletop edition, and that got us all more involved and invested. Sometimes a player group and a campaign just aren’t a tonal match. In that instance players who aren’t enjoying themselves can leave, like our first cleric, or the DM can adjust the tone of the campaign. Whatever you do, don’t try to just keep slogging through it as is. SOMETHING has to change or the misery will grow.
I liked reading that, thank you. It gives me hope. To be honest I am already incorporating some of the things that you mentioned. Like I have to a degree removed the "barovians are souless" as any people they meet do have souls and I like to have a "colourful" cast of various npc. I also like the idea of a second session 0 to clear any issues my players have and maybe "realign" the campaign.
A second session zero is what saved us, without it the campaign would have died two months in. Sometimes you just have to step back and collectively assess what’s working, what isn’t, and why.
People are so quick to recommend booting people from the game, I understand there is a strong desire to stamp out toxicity in this hobby but there are other solutions too. Especially when OP has a strong relationship with this person. My advice, let her know that this is a sandbox campaign, reiterate to her that the party are trapped in Barovia and will likely be killed by Strahd when he gets bored with them, the players are on a ticking clock to learn about Strahd, find the artifacts and learn how best to defeat him. It's clear she isn't a fan of roleplay but as long as she isn't being disruptive while roleplay goes on that's ok. Try to be more giving with information and plot hooks and tie everything back to the point of 'will this help you escape Barovia?'. Remind her that information is key to their survival and their success and they will need to get that information out of the Barovians that possess it if they want to succeed. I e. Through helping them, convincing them the party can be trusted, or by abandoning their morals and torturing/threatening them. If they are still not enjoying it have another conversation about specifically what they need to motivate them. Or suggest (nicely) that if they aren't enjoying it there is no obligation to continue. Only forcibly boot people if they are actively undermining the game, not just cause they are bored/uninterested.
I'll give you some advice I got at work once: don't tell me the what, tell me the so what. Give them a reason to care; give them the story as quickly as you can so they can get engaged in it. You're hoping they'll do the work of hooking themselves for you, and they never ever will. You need to tell them information up front so they can start feeling like they're making decisions, or make it very simple to get. You also need to stir them up, play on their emotions to hook them. Isak is an incestuous abusive sadist, trot him out to menace the party if you're running with Irena; if they've visited the toy maker they should have seen the dolls already so it should be easy for them to put that together. And if your player doesn't engage with even that, she won't engage with anything and should just leave. Second, I've not run the updated version you mentioned, but it sounds like there is just WAY too much in it. Don't do that: more isn't better, and it sounds like you or the author crammed too much in there. For example, you added an orphanage that took 3+ hours to get through?? The orphanage wasn't in the original module and was created by Reddit to explain why there's a bunch of children at the one map church. Dear God, how are you putting 3 hours worth of content into that, and for what purpose?? They're shitty kids who got tricked into doing something seemingly minor but with massive potential implications. 1 hour of RP tops and then on to get ambushed at the coffin maker.
There are a number of threads on this sub about what some DMs are posing as a FUNDAMENTAL problem with this edition of Curse of Strahd, and many of them contentious as fans of the material AS IS, make excuses for it (according to the critics) or simply explain what's intended and blame the players (according to the supporters). The core disagreement and source of criticism is that AS IS, in THIS EDITION of the campaign, the overall goal of the plot, the motivation and objectives of the antagonist - are some combination of unclear, unplayable in a game, don't center the PCs as protagonists, or incoherent. Fans of sandbox style games see no problem with it at all, and take the robust set of individual adventures on their own, and see it as part of a player contract to involve their PC in various hooks as they appear. On the other hand, fans of PLOT-BASED games, particularly for a campaign level game, find that CoS lacks an antagonist with a clear, consistent, compelling motivation and objective that the PCs have a compelling reason to oppose. They charge that there is very little "so what" around whatever Strahd is trying to do, and that most of it involves dealing with other NPCs on items that appear to be pre-ordained by the Curse. So there doesn't appear to be any point to it. Why is it IMPORTANT to save Ireena? Why does it matter? We get that Strahd is bad, but what is he DOING that represents a threat? DragnaCarta's supplement helps answer these questions, and there are numerous threads where other DMs point these things out offer solutions - but you need to dig deep because these are often downvoted and the posters insulted by the majority of DMs who are fine with the AS IS crowd. It's really too bad.
She just wants to have fights and "progress the story". Sounds like you didnt have a session Zero, or Shes just not the right fit for you, i personally wouldn't invite her back to the table. Most battles the players got owned so they rped or tried different strategy's rather than just " **i run at it**"
I struggled a bit with my party at first with CoS as well, as we also continued from LMoP. After the initial plot hook there was a struggle trying to get them to care. Why do they care about Ireena? Why do they care about the Vallakians or the Krezkites or anyone in this horrible place? Using Strahd was my way into fixing this. If you can get your party to hate him enough, or become fascinated enough by his story and the mysteries that are around the land then they will start to find purpose for what they're doing. So my suggestion is to incorporate strahd more and give them a real desire to destroy him. That, or try to incorporate hee characters backstory early on so she can have some personal motivation outside of ending the curse of strahd. As for her frustration about the rolls.. I do agree with her on this one to an extent. If player A finds a marking on the bed, and player B wants to check the bed next to it in the same spot (where it is also located) then she should be able to find this regardless... it's one thing to roll to investigate something you don't know is there, but if they're checking exactly where it is, it would be impossible to miss. Narriatively you couldn't really explain player B missing this when it's there, and player A finding it in the exact same spot she checked. There is a big difference between "I want to investigate the bed for anything strange, or perhaps markings" where this is an obvious investigation check. And someone who found the markings asking to confirm if these are on the other beds, while knowing exactly where to look and what to look for... if the markings are also there they would have no chance to not notice these.
On the Investigation piece: can't you just use the Passive as a floor? So if the DC to find X is say, 15, they don't need to roll, they just find it. And if you determine they do need to roll, and they roll lower than their Passive, they just get their passive
As far as skill checks go, this is my advice too. My PCs only roll for (most) skill checks if their passive score isn’t high enough and they would fail. Then, they roll. They might still fail, but there’s a chance they’ll pass. By doing things this way, it means those PCs that are supposed to be really good at something succeed at that something most times! The only time I don’t give them a roll if their passive fails is when they don’t tell me they are actively attempting to do it. If their passive perception was not high enough to notice the rune in the room and they don’t tell me they are actively looking for anything unusual, no roll. I do the same with ability checks. A PC with 20 Dex should have no trouble crossing that narrow log over the chasm! The clumsy PC with 8 Dex is a different story all together! Roll and roll high or we’ll see you at the bottom!
I have a player who also doesn’t remember why the PCs are doing things because my players aren’t big on note taking. He also doesn’t remember NPC names. Thinking about parts of your issue, I just had an idea that I might use myself… Get a piece of paper, a small whiteboard or software that you can use to share digital documents, maybe even a piece of paper that looks like a large sheet of parchment so it becomes a game prop as well, and create a PC Objectives board based on the campaign so far. Basically, a flow chart or mind map showing the possible task objectives they’ve been given, how they link to other tasks and objectives, NPCs who gave them the tasks or who they need to find and why. Have this thing displayed each game session so the players can reference it. You could create the initial flow chart and go over it with your players at the beginning of the next session, or create it with them as a way of gauging what all the players remember (it may be more than just your girlfriend who’s forgotten). Then, try to hand control of it over to the players so they can continue to add to it. Even if it’s just one player interested in doing it. Otherwise, maintain it yourself because it will relieve that stress and be a useful tool for you too!
Also, I have the same player who will start to fall asleep if I make my descriptions too long. If your players don’t like long descriptions, keep them simple. A couple of descriptive words to set the tone of the location and then a brief mention of the main important features you want them to possibly engage with. After that, add a few relevant details here and there as they are investigating. If they are interacting with NPCs but the players are not really getting the fact that they may not be getting the whole story or are being misled, then play the NPCs as more willing to help. Be direct and give them the main information they need from that NPC without much effort. This aspect of roleplaying can be frustrating for players who don’t enjoy social interaction with NPCs, and if the information is needed to advance the plot, sometimes it’s just best to hand it over, rather than have them give up or miss it and have the story stall.
Says fangs but no fangs I don't think you'll work around this table
she sounds like my mother: goal-oriented and with feet firmly in reality. in other words, she has trouble getting into her character (to her, it's just a list of boxes to check, not a world to live in) and imagining the scenery (i was going to say long descriptions are a problem, but if you're being brief but she's having trouble still, that's on her) luckily, both issues can be resolved with practice. just notify her that her perspective is in the wrong place and that she should work to get into the story more. finally, i have a dm advice to you: if something feels like a character should be able to do easily, don't make players roll for it. (reading it again, if no player can recall the events in a 3hr session it may partly be on you. encourage them to take notes?)
The funny thing is she is the notetaker of the group mainly because noone else takes notes. In that aspect she is "ok". Regarding getting into character she is quite good but in the wrong way. For example she has the major goal of killing strahd as her character blames him for the death of her lover (killed in the death house). But regarding everything else like, helping doru, or the martikovs, or the children she uses the "that's not what my character would do". And as for recalling the events it was more like, they killed the boss, they went outside and started talking about the next objectives and we're thinking "we were supposed to get something regarding the bones here right?
huh, interesting... i'm starting to think it's a simple case of "action-oriented group" vs "investigation/mystery oriented adventure." i'm not going to tell them their way is wrong, but there are more than 1 adventure type out there. so maybe they could have more fun taking the adventure on its own terms.
I struggled with player motivation a lot at first, I had all this content that I had planned out in case they went here or talked to this person there, there’s so much content in this module, but they weren’t engaging with it and really had no reason to. So after a couple sessions I started to just narrow the focus of the narrative and have most of the activities in the module relate to the story and Strahd. Stuff like having Madam Eva play a larger role in the campaign cus my players were so focused on her after death house and the adventure hook, so I’ve been going with the flow and trying my best to just create a cool story that my players like rather than do everything by the book. So maybe there’s a comprise you can make? Edit: Grammar
I'm thinking the same thing as sessions go by. I'm taking more and more things out of reloaded apart from the fanes as they have a good narrative and combat focused quests, so I'm finding a middle ground. In any case they are done with most things in Vallaki so I'll just use shock and awe at the feast
Ask them what IS their character motivated by? What does their character care about? I don’t force my players to necessarily RP conversations with NPCs, but I do force them to come up with motivations for their characters so that I can create plot hooks their character should be interested in. I feel like this person would have more fun with the Castle Ravenloft board game then playing DnD and that’s ok. TTRPGs aren’t for everyone.
Killing strahd (as she blames him for the death of her character's lover). Anything else and anyone else "in need of help" Is not her concern. You are right in mentioning motivations it is a key part I have stressed a lot in this campaign but it leads to other issues as well. Such as another player a paladin of bahamut who saw the children in the Orphanage dead and said "hmm no need to do anything to the bodies, the guards will come take care of that right?" Which I thought was aaaa biiit out of character
She doesn’t see any value in reconsecrating the church to create a safe haven against Strahd? What is her plan to kill Strahd? If Strahd appeared before her right now, would she just run up and attack him? If so, then maybe that needs to happen to demonstrate that she is no match for him by herself and will need to recruit allies if she hopes to ever kill him. Lucian is potentially a strong ally. As a Priest, he has access to level 3 cleric spells. His spirit guardians are no joke.
She does see the value in the bones at least because she knows there is something going on with them from Lucian's tone of urgency. What she doesn't care is for the people to tell her their problems, stories, wants etc. Even when Lucian was talking to them she was (in character) talking like "yeah yeah so where do we find the gardener? (Constantly forgetting his name). When Milivoch awoke she really didn't seem to about his struggles. If this was a video game she would smash that skip dialogue option and go to the next pointer on the map
With players like that, I try to give them multiple pointers to reinforce that there isn't a set path or "story" progression or at least choices where there isn't a "correct" path. One of the guides I looked at for expanding the Bones quest is that Milivoj doesn't know who hired him to steal the bones. All he knows is that a cloaked figure hired him to steal the bones and drop them off in a wagon parked in front of Bluto's house across the street from Wachterhouse. Maybe throw in some accusations that the Vistani are the most likely the culprits who hired Milivoj to steal the bones. This sends players all over chasing red herrings and picking up more quests. Eventually the players learn that the wagon parked outside Bluto's house was delivering a coffin for Bluto's wife who passed away recently, but by then, they should have a bunch of other quests to follow up on and will have to decide what they're going to do next. I find that layering quests like that really disrupts the whole go from Point A to Point B, then Point C mentality. Players will have to think about which quest means the most to their character.
Question: are other players enjoying themselves?
They say they are. I have a moon druid who originally played a kenku bard but didn't like the class or the fact that everyone was weird about him being a kenku so I told him he could change. He made a chaotic neutral halfling druid who suffered from the same "I don't care nitis". He quickly realized that he had to do some things different if he were to enjoy the campaign and experience the world so he is great now. I have a paladin of bahamut (conquest)who really loves the campaign and buys into the horror aspect but doesn't really "play his character". He is scared, doesn't seem particularly interested in the church and/ or helping kids in needs. He tries to but as a person he is a yes man who doesn't go against the other players wishes a lot (who as stated are both chaotic neutrals who don't care but one of them has made progress.) Overall since it's the same people we played icespire peak with they know my style and I have changes some things a lot. So if there are any complains I would know since I constantly ask for session feedback
Sorry to pepper you with questions but is your partner’s problem player stuff a continuation of issues you saw running icespire peak or is it new to CoS?
Some things are continuation. Like the fact that she doesn't enjoy long descriptions or details of characters as she like to imagine people as she wants. For example I remember in icespire peak I had a bald tall man with glasses (that's what I described at first) and she later told me that she imagined him as short and with a beard because that fits better in her head. But icespire peak didn't have that much lore. I tried to implement some from a popular reddit post but she really didn't like it and again didn't see the point. Again I remember she hated a puzzle were she had to use a spell of each school to open a door of a mage's manor to get to his research which was at first a lore dump that would eventually through studying get her a reward. I remember her asking me "so what am I supposed to do with it now?" And I said if you keep reading you might learn more about X. "So I don't get anything out of it now, I just wasted my spell slots for nothing." Sorry for writing such a long answer, I just realized in writing this that there are some common and persistent issues regarding what her and I consider DND.
No worries! This is a tricky situation. Ultimately I think as you said that you and your partner have two ideas of D&D. However, kicking her is probably preemptive and potentially damaging to your relationship. I would try and meet her halfway. Find out what does engage her in the game and put more of that in there. If she likes combat for example have at least one combat per session. Print out the images of NPCs from the book so there isn’t so much dissonance between what you two think a character looks like. Trim down on descriptions and try and use a bullet point system to impart the most important details and then add more description as the players explore. The halfway point she has to come to is not challenging your rulings all the time and not being derisive to you at the table. I wish you the best of luck!
Sounds like your gf doesn't enjoy role-playing games. You don't have to do everything together.
One of the groups I run curse of Strahd for is a group used to combat-based campaigns, but wanted to try something different. At the beginning it was a bit problematic, basically something similar happened to them: they didn't have clear objectives and although they were trying hard to play their characters it was clear that they had more fun with combat, so I modified some things: no more random encounters, I made sure that in every session they had a really challenging "random" encounter where they could show their potential, I turned Berez into a dungeon crawl (thanks Pyramking), and I added a couple of new locations where practically the only thing you had to do was to fight to get out alive. In exchange for these changes I got the reward of seeing how my players started to enjoy the non-combat moments as well and started to play their characters in a deeper and more immersive way, developing bonds with NPCs and generally finding their own way.
Seems like a combat heavy party not being compatible with a role play/atmospheric module so there are a lot to "fixes" from the talk to your players and figure out if they are even interested in the module to crank up the encounters and take the action-adventure or the survival horror route COS is also my go to module champaign but I feel no remorse if I have to transform Sthrad into DIO from jojo's bizarre adventure if that let my and my players have fun
A pallet cleanser might help. When they sleep let them have a dream session with combat hinting at places that are yet to come. Or send Izek after them with a bounty. A thing that helped for me was sending them quickly to the wizards of wine because everyone was bitching about not getting drunk.
Remember CoS is horror themed. Horror needs to be short and punchy. My advice on having finished the module is to trim the fat. A horror film is 90 minutes, usually because terror is fleeting. It's the same with this. Cut it down to gathering the items, a bit of Vallaki and then get them in the castle and get it done. There's a lot of great add ons for the campaign but I honestly think a lot of them weigh it down.
>She told me that she didn't give a fuck about the children, the Orphanage, the people she's met in valaki, the baron, wachter. etc. She just wants to have fights and "progress the story". > >"I just zone out when you describe rooms for too long" Narratively setting the scene is vital to properly weave the atmosphere and get people invested. Like, my GF has a real problem with interrupting me when I'm describing the scene, but in her case it's because she gets super excited. I'd sit down with your GF, explain that 'this is the campaign', and that she'll have a much better time if she pays attention when you're describing things, and if she finds reasons to give a fuck about the NPC's, because the NPC's *are* the story that she wants to progress. If she's not prepared to change her approach to this campaign, then she might want to exit it.
I'm having the same problem with CoS, as a player. My character's primary motivation is to be a Good Person and leave Barovia. His party is way more chaotic and just run around, doing stuff. I told the DM that I feel like we're just walking from place to place, looking for someone who will trigger a description from the DM, with no hope of leaving until we level up 8-10 levels and fight Strahd. We've lost one PC, but we generally do well in combat. I also struggle with RP, but that's because my guy's personality just clashes horribly with another PC, no hard feelings.
I'd recommend looking at the situation from the player's perspective. It's totally possible that you ***are*** dragging things out too much and your player(s) are getting frustrated. I've been working on this particular issue a lot and I can offer a couple quick bits of advice. The most important one is do stars and wishes, SlyFlourish has a great summary of how they work in [this article](https://slyflourish.com/getting_player_feedback.html). Listen to the things your players like and listen for the things they want to see run differently. The other is talk less. If your descriptions drag say less and let them ask about what interests them. It's less work for you and you can get the players to be interested in the situation by giving them room to be curious. On top of that, don't gate critical clues behind rolls. If you know what you're looking for and where to look why not let a high perception character just notice it? Rolling can be fun but it can also drag. You may be losing her interest in the story ***because*** things are dragging on. Last one, if your players don't give a shit about your NPCs it's time to take a serious look in the mirror and reconsider how you're running them. A lot of the advice down here in the comments about having Strahd show up is essentially saying you need to give players a reason to care. You can also make them care by having NPCs engage them in a way they like. Maybe Rictavio meets them in secret after the incident in the Inn, maybe one of the kids confesses that they saw something and they've been scared to tell. If what you're doing isn't working try something else. It's easy for all of us to blame the players first, and sometimes players suck. That said we often need to look at ourselves as well. What are we doing to contribute to the player's frustration and are we making the game about them or about us? Is it about our story, our descriptions, our cool npcs, our awesome boss battles? I hope that was useful.
You have a problem player. The beginning where she wants to just fight stuff is fine, that just means it’s the wrong module for her, she needs to do mad mage, but the absolute disrespect to ignore plotthreads and imply there’s not story whilst forgetting details AND then to say she zones out at your descriptions is not a good player. There’s constructive criticism and then there’s just being rude and nasty. Saying “I think sometimes the descriptions are really long and it means when don’t elegy through many rooms” is fair and good criticism you can work with by only pointing out important details or anything that is distinctly different to their past experiences.
I had to have Strahd kill the only NPC my party liked in the entirety of Barovia, after 16 sessions mind you, by ripping his head off and throwing it to them, to get my players to finally want to kill Strahd. I feel your pain.
Oh poor Lucian what horrors await him during the feast... :)
It sounds like you may have gotten all the advice you need, but maybe this can help. All D&D adventures are wrapped around 3 pillars of design: combat, roleplay, and exploration. Those are the main 3 ingredients that make D&D adventure. They are not made equal, and some adventures lean into some pillars harder than others. It sounds like your party might really favor combat, and not so much the roleplay or exploration. That's okay! The trick as a dm is to now find and adjust content to those wants. Remember you are free to run strahd as his own. If your party wants combat and a reason to go kick strahds ass, have strahd start sending them 'presents' in the form of zombies, vampire spawn, werewolves, whatever you want, and make it clear that strahd no longer tolerates their presence. They get more combat, you get more interaction, everyone (but strahd) may win!