What's your opinion on female Strahd/"Strahdyana"? I know it's a popular way of reducing the creep factor inherent in the CoS module, but it always rubbed me the wrong way somehow.
This will also probably be a long one because I have been shaking it around in my brain like a snowball.
So first off, I do not actually care if you make your Strahd a woman, I know that there are Big Name D&D players who do it successfully. I believe Ginny Di runs a female Strahd, and what I've seen of it from over on Twitter seems pretty neat. That being said, I think about Strahd, like, too much, and also spend a lot of time on CoS reddit and twitter, and I do think a lot of DMs use female!Strahd as a quick & dirty way to reduce the creep factor, like you said, without really considering the power imbalances and forces at play that allow Strahd to be a creep. I think that might be why it rubs you the wrong way the same way a lot of it rubs me the wrong way. It isn't actually the gender swap that's the core problem, but the lack of assessment that goes into a lot of these types of games. I'm going to go into Probably Too Much Detail as to why below the cut
CW for discussions of sexism, sex/gender based violence, suicide, and homophobia, as well as major spoilers for Curse of Strahd below the cut
As written in the module, Strahd is a horrible fucking monster. He acts like an incel and is a manipulative, jealous, psycho-sexual creep. Strahd works as a timeless villain, because he's more than just a bogeyman. He is not only the monster under the bed, but the monster sharing the bed. He's deeply pathetic and deplorable and terrifying all at the same time. I think this is something a lot of tables don't want to tackle headfirst for obvious reasons, but still want to enjoy the classic gothic horror of CoS, and I think that's great! D&D is supposed to be fun, and as written, CoS is a meatgrinder that can be a pain in the ass to slog through at times. But in my opinion, it requires a lot of work on the part of the DM to really look through the module and see what needs to be kept, what needs to be reworked or reinterpreted, and what needs to be scrapped.
I think that it's very easy to see a character like Strahd whose main plot revolves around gendered, sexual violence (pursuing an unwilling Tatyana to and through her death) and say that changing him to a her will fix that gendered violence in a way I really do not vibe with.
For example, simply changing Strahd to lady!Strahd isn't going to make finding a 16-year-old Gertruda in her bed any less terrible. Lady!Strahd might make the initial discomfort of the pursuit of Ireena less uncomfortable, especially if you change the subject of Strahd's pursuit to Ismark, but it doesn't actually change the immorality of the actions. And obviously, lady!Strahd will not fix the fact that she pursued Tatyana (or even guy!Tatyana) until she is driven to suicide.
If you change Strahd to a woman, are you also going to gender-swap the rest of the characters, or are you just going to have a woman be responsible for the torture and killing of so many women and children? In the same vein, are you going to consider the potential homophobic implications of having a lesbian predator treat women the same way as-writ Strahd would? Are you going to dismantle the power structures that exist in CoS just as diligently as you would with a male antagonist? Are you going to make sure that your changes aren't diminishing or making light of gendered and sexual violence perpetrated against men by women? Will these changes alone be enough to make CoS enjoyable by you and your players? Obviously, if the answer is yes, then go off! Use your safety tools and keep communication open. I just think that sometimes DMs, especially on Reddit, think they're doing a lot with lady!Strahd without doing much at all.
That said, I do think there is some interesting potential in CoS having a woman antagonist, though. I think it could be fun to explore some antiquated gender dynamics-- is it really Tatyana that Strahd is after, or is Strahd jealous of Sergei because he's the male heir who received their parent's keep, while Strahd had to go out and fight for her respect? How would Strahd's relationship to Rahadin, or Fiona Wachter potentially change? I think a woman Strahd would make a great baseline to bring Baba Lysaga to the forefront as a more prominent, plot-important enemy than she's written as. I'd love to see what could happen with that maternal dynamic with a hardened woman instead of an entitled man. From what I've seen though, that's not the kind of thing most DMs who gender swap Strahd are looking for. I could be wrong though!
TLDR: lady!Strahd can be a fun way to challenge preconceived notions about the module, and to revamp (heh) the story a little. It can also give your players a new way to simp over Strahd, because BBEG-fuckers come in all genders and sexual orientations. However, I think a lot of DMs use it as a way to fix the module through 'girlboss-ifying' Strahd instead of confronting its many, many issues, and I don't think it should be used as the DMs primary method of 'fixing' the module. In fact, I think it can actually open more ideological cans of worms than running it as written.
On a lighter note, I do think Strahdyana von Zarovich is a silly name. Like, Strahdyana doesn't feel particularly Slavic, it's not good to look at or say, and it feels weird especially when you are keeping Tatyana's name Tatyana. But most importantly, it should be von Zarova because that's how Slavic surnames work. The naming conventions are frustratingly inconsistent in the book, but if you're gonna do it at all, I say do it better LMAO
First sesh of yestendor in uhhhhh? 2 months or so???
It went very well! One player taking a break so we had a lore-heavy session to send their character off for a while and make sure the player would have the Most Important Lore for when they return.
We were laughing the whole damn time. I made macaroni. We had fantasy comiccon. It was a good fuckin time.
And yet before and after the session I was Big Nervous because, well, maybe I'm not that good of a dm. But my players consistently have fun when we play.
New years resolution to have more faith in my dming?
we had the first session of yestendor back from summer break and it was so much fun! Every player got development, at least two players were thrown into new character arcs, and they got to meet several of my favorite npcs
Ive been so nervous about returning to dming. I know, in theory, that I'm not a *bad* dm, but I can't help but wonder sometimes if my players really like my stories, or if they just like me. But seeing everyone hop back into character, listening to their laughter and their little gasps as they connected dots they didnt even realize had been present? The way several players asked me about ideas to further developed their characters through roleplay? It was the best feeling in the fucking world
I might not be the best dm, but last night my players (and myself!) were both thoroughly entertained and inspired, and that's what dming is all about!
melemar update: one of my players (not vik this time) guessed the new plot twist offhandedly. heres to hoping that it was so offhanded they wont immediately follow through on it, or else there is simply no plot
Arcana - What is your most crazy/insane/bizarre tabletop experience?
There are two points in yestendor, one where I misspoke and one in which I didn't realize the implications of what I said, and the players got so enthused and into the idea that I'd unintentionally introduced that it WILDLY changed the course of the game. Maybe it's not, like, obscenely bizarre, but the fact that all of my players uniformly jumped on a plot point I hadn't meant to imply was definitely one of those "hello??" moments
Athletics - Do you have any tips for running combat?
I personally hate most combat--simply throwing numbers just doesnt do it for me. My advice is make it memorable! If the combat doesn't serve a narrative purpose? Leave it out. My players remember all of my combats because the fights happened for a reason. I didn't just throw kobolds or gnolls for filler. And even if the combat isn't long (most of my combats run 1-3 rounds) I try to keep it challenging and interesting with lair actions and thoughtful attacks. And try to give your enemy npcs/monsters a certain logic! Did the wizard do a fuckton of damage last round to a simple minded creature, even if the "smart" choice is to go after the cleric? It'll make it more interesting to play by a non-meta logic.
Diplomacy - What player style do you have most trouble GMing for?
By virtue of the above, I have a hard time playing for combat loving number crunchers. But in terms of things that I really cannot dm for? Rules lawyers and backseat dms drive me up the goddamn wall to the point I can't focus on dming. I get super nervous when I'm "corrected," because I get very self conscious about not looking like I know what I'm doing lmao.
