# 2010: Is it Dragonlance? (hint)



## avin (Jun 10, 2009)

A DDMspoiler user has found some miniatures from the next set. One of them seems to be an Aurak.

Is it a sign of Dragonlance being the next setting?







http://ddmspoilers.com/forum/download/file.php?id=25

ddmspoilers.com • View topic - Some D&D miniature pic



> K, this is what ive gleaned: (assuming source is correct)
> 
> legendary evils:
> minotaur thing is a goristo #24/40
> ...


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 10, 2009)

Urgh, I hope not, I want Dark Sun.

When are we going to get new hints on the setting? We should be getting on leakage from WotC insiders by now.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 10, 2009)

Looks like a kobold wyrmpriest to me. But it's hard to tell whether it's small or medium sized without some perspective.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jun 10, 2009)

Any sort of 'leak' for the dnd insider subscribers is going to be about as subtle as an outright announcement.  Given that they are still in the process of putting out the Eberron setting, I think that it will be kept under wraps until they are ready to start the marketing push.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## avin (Jun 10, 2009)

Dangerous Delves just released a kobold wyrmpriest so, nope.

His source seem to have looked at miniature base, so the Aurak Draconian name should be correct.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 10, 2009)

avin said:


> Dangerous Delves just released a kobold wyrmpriest so, nope.
> 
> His source seem to have looked at miniature base, so the Aurak Draconian name should be correct.




I''m not sure if we can infer the next setting from just a single miniature... doesn't seem much of a hint to me.

It looks like WotC won't be providing any anticipation through DDI after all... most likely, we'll have to wait for GenCOn when we'll get the announcement.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2009)

avin said:


> Dangerous Delves just released a kobold wyrmpriest so, nope.





Might be the Kobold Soccer Mom we've been expecting.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 10, 2009)

I'd actually buy the Dragonlance books if they came out. Forgotten Realms and Eberron...not so much.


----------



## avin (Jun 10, 2009)

Mark said:


> Might be the Kobold Soccer Mom we've been expecting.




HAHAHAHA!

I'm also hoping it's not Dragonlance.

Dark Sun is more appealing to me.


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 10, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I''m not sure if we can infer the next setting from just a single miniature... doesn't seem much of a hint to me.
> 
> It looks like WotC won't be providing any anticipation through DDI after all... most likely, we'll have to wait for GenCOn when we'll get the announcement.





Wizards making a miniature of a creature not in 4th edition???

Do you really believes so?

Miniatures lines now is only a suport for the game, a acessory.. minis for skirmish or book-fans no more..

So is Dragonlance..

That, or Draconians going to party with Dragonborns and Dragonspawns, making more of the sooooooooo needed Dragon-Hibrids in some new book (Draconomicon 2) or DDI exclusive.. oO


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 10, 2009)

I agree it will be Dragonlance, based on the fact that Weis and Hickman will be participating in WotC seminars at GenCon Indy.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 10, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> I agree it will be Dragonlance, based on the fact that Weis and Hickman will be participating in WotC seminars at GenCon Indy.




Well, that's a much stronger hint. I think that Darksun might have been more interesting, but we'll see what they'll be able to do.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 10, 2009)

If next year's setting is Dragonlance, hopefully the modules won't be as "railroad"-ish.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 10, 2009)

Yick. I really, really hope it isn't Dragonlance. Especially given how thoroughly and repeatedly the novels have trashed the setting by this point. If it _is_ Dragonlance, I hope it's a reboot to the start of Chronicles or Legends.

Dragonlance had some excellent novels, but I've never been sold on it as a setting for RPGs. Dark Sun had craptastic novels but it was an awesome setting.

Unfortunately, I can see how they might re-release Dragonlance in an effort to leverage the popularity of the novels... sigh.


----------



## davethegame (Jun 10, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> I agree it will be Dragonlance, based on the fact that Weis and Hickman will be participating in WotC seminars at GenCon Indy.




You might be right, but it could also be just for the anniversary celebrations. I think it could go either way.


----------



## Panthanas (Jun 10, 2009)

Well, I like Dragonlance but I would _much_ rather see Dark Sun!


----------



## stonegod (Jun 10, 2009)

:shrug: If it is DL, their going to have a hard time wrenching it from its 1st-ed straightjackets to keep it faithful to the setting. We played the 3.x version recently, and all I could think of was "that's 1st ed thinking" all over the place. Too many straightjackets. If you though bashing FR to fit was bad (I don't; I think it had relatively few changes fundamentally other than the destruction of the weave---the jump in history is a wash for me), it'll likely take another Cataclysm (#4 now?) to get DL to fit.

So a 4E DL would be quite a departure from the original. Possibly not worth it.


----------



## Ktulu (Jun 10, 2009)

Looks likely to be Dragonlance, imo.

PH3 has Minotaur as a playable race
Raistlin shows up in the Character Builder as a sample
the 25th anniversary of Dragonlance is right around the corner
A new draconian mini...

While it's not any sort of guarantee, I could see DL being the next setting.  Doesn't really interest me, but I'd probably buy it before I'd buy Dark*Sun, so there is that.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 10, 2009)

Sounds like that's what it'll be. Huh. If it does turn out to be the case, I'm still going to be rather surprised given 

A) the drama surrounding WotC cancelling 'Dragons of an Hourglass Mage', supposedly refusing the accept the completed manuscript, and then later bringing it back from cancellation to supposedly be released this August. 

B) the FR treatment - will they greatly alter the setting and/or its history/lore to conform to 4e rules and 4e default flavor assumptions? Because DL has quite a number of unique restrictions and such that won't easily fit the 4e default, that everything to this point has been bent to accomodate. If Weiss and Hickman are involved though, they might have learned from 4e FR's reception, which will be blessedly good for fans of the setting.

We'll see. I've read all the Weiss and Hickman novels, and a few others, but otherwise never been too deeply into the setting itself, so not a hard core fan, and not a ton invested in the setting. Not sure how a possible reboot will go over, because that might risk novel line sales (likewise with any massive setting changes). This will be interesting.

And now, having said that, watch the 2010 setting be Mystara.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 10, 2009)

yeah, I'm not sure how excited I'd be to see it in its 4E incarnation, considering how many times the setting has been re-molded by various "cataclysms", but all signs point to DL as the next setting. 

Makes sense in a way though, it would explain why WoTC pulled the license back home, and of all the settings, I would bet DL is one of the top sellers, much moreso than Dark Sun, Mystara, or Spelljammer. 

I wonder if we won't get the wierder settings like DS or SJ until late in the edition cycle?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 10, 2009)

Dragonlance would make me happy. But Planescape & Dark Sun would make me happy too, so it´s a win/win. I just want it to see the orgasm of joy on the Dragonlance Nexus. Ah, its good to be a D&D gamer right now.


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 10, 2009)

Ktulu said:


> Looks likely to be Dragonlance, imo.
> 
> PH3 has Minotaur as a playable race
> Raistlin shows up in the Character Builder as a sample
> ...





too many tiny clues to return of DL.

and nothing close to ... about D_S.

Its done.. i could bet 30/1 in favor of Dragonlance right now

We could have a mini of a sexy Aspect of Zeboim? plse???


anyway.. a reboot-rebuild setting in moldes of Marvel Ultimates.. introducing new elements of 4ed. re-thinking old ones and keeping mood-theme-heart of Dragonlance should be cool.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 10, 2009)

Hm.  Well, if it's Dragonlance, I'll be very disappointed.  But yes, given all this and given how WotC's cancelled the Dragonlance license back before 4e was even announced, I agree it's looking likely.  Name recognition + books + fanbase + more traditional fantasy = probable winner.

It's too bad.  I kinda hate Dragonlance.   If this is the case, WotC will, for the first time, have a hard time selling a 4e product to me.

-O


----------



## Morrus (Jun 10, 2009)

avin said:


> A DDMspoiler user has found some miniatures from the next set. One of them seems to be an Aurak.




"Seems to be"?  Why doesn't he just look on the bottom , where it will tell him?


----------



## Vael (Jun 10, 2009)

Huh. I have no real knowledge of Dragonlance, never read any of the books. But I think the evidence seems to hint that we may see a 4e Dragonlance. I'm not sure if I'd buy it or not. 

Out of curiousity, if Dragonlance were the next setting ... what class would likely be in the Dragonlance Player's Guide?


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 10, 2009)

I want Greyhawk!

I'd rather have Dragonlance then Dark Sun though. Dark Sun may be PoL and may even fit the tiered system, but the everything core must fit concept of 4E could destroy Dark Sun were everything was modified to match the setiing.


----------



## crazy_cat (Jun 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> "Seems to be"?  Why doesn't he just look on the bottom , where it will tell him?



I think it says quite a bit about the recent (negative) trend in DDM quality that we are currently witnessing when somebody posts a very big picture of a new mini and we can only conclude that it 'appears to be' something.

Top quality recognisable sculpts and paintjobs. Not.


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 10, 2009)

Vael said:


> Huh. I have no real knowledge of Dragonlance, never read any of the books. But I think the evidence seems to hint that we may see a 4e Dragonlance. I'm not sure if I'd buy it or not.
> 
> Out of curiousity, if Dragonlance were the next setting ... what class would likely be in the Dragonlance Player's Guide?




classes?

hmm...

We should have new build for Wizards for sure.. white/black/red robes..
Tinker maybe... Mariner could be like Gladiator feats or a class.. same to Nobre.

races.. if Minos are in Player III; left Kenders, Wild Elves (kagonesti); Sea Elves; Draconians... 

there are plenty of stuff..


----------



## avin (Jun 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> "Seems to be"?  Why doesn't he just look on the bottom , where it will tell him?




Here:

DND Legendary Elves Min Loose 3/40 Aurak Draconian lose - eBay (item 120432026967 end time Jun-11-09 10:03:04 PDT)


----------



## Rechan (Jun 10, 2009)

The only thing that would make me remotely interested in DL would be stuff on handling keeps/realms and such.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 10, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Dragonlance ... Planescape & Dark Sun ...






Nymrohd said:


> I want Greyhawk!




I'd rather have a new setting. Then again, I can't wait for Earthdawn: Age of Legends to come out.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 10, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> I want Greyhawk!
> 
> I'd rather have Dragonlance then Dark Sun though. Dark Sun may be PoL and may even fit the tiered system, but the everything core must fit concept of 4E could destroy Dark Sun were everything was modified to match the setiing.




Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get to DS eventually. (and destroy it)


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 10, 2009)

There are some indications of Dragonlance, but that might just be the usual working bits of settings into the core that they are doing with ALL of the old settings.

For the record, my guesses in order of likeliness are:
1) New Oriental Adventures-inspired setting
2) Dark Sun
3) Dragonlance
4) Something completely new, perhaps one of the runner ups from the setting search

But those are just guesses and there's random snippets and rumors here and there that support any of them (or any of several more ideas). All I know is in the Tome Show podcast Chris Perkins and James Wyatt stated that the big announcement of the next setting will be at Gen Con. I figured they would wait until after Eberron could be focused on for a bit, but that's the first I've heard of them clearly stating when the announcement will be.


----------



## Drakhar (Jun 10, 2009)

I'd be taking anything gleaned from said source with a large grain of salt, seeing as apparantly the next Player set has an Invoker in the Arcane set and two warlords in the divine set.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2009)

davethegame said:


> You might be right, but it could also be just for the anniversary celebrations. I think it could go either way.




The Weis & Hickman seminar is about the 25th anniversary of Dragonlance.  Nothing to do with a 4e version of DL.




Ktulu said:


> PH3 has Minotaur as a playable race




Minotaurs are in many worlds, so I wouldn't use that as evidence.  That being said, it's my belief that Dragonlance _perfected_ the minotaur.  Of course, as the guy who wrote the most about minotaurs in the 3.5 gaming books, I'm extremely biased.  




> Raistlin shows up in the Character Builder as a sample




Raistlin is one of the two most popular D&D characters, right up there with Drizzt.  I think that's why you saw his 4e stats.


Personally, I think Dark Sun is more likely at this point for a few reasons.

1.  The Prism Pentad novels have just been re-released.  Why do that now unless you're gearing up to getting people into Dark Sun?

2.  PHB3 has psionics.  That would be a nice tie-in.

3.  It's too soon after the Sovereign Press/Margaret Weis Productions era.  The 3.5 license allowed MWP to produce the best Dragonlance gaming products ever.  WotC would practically be "competing" with the prior edition if they did DL now.  Best to let DL sit so that there's a few years in between, and then WotC would be more successful in a reboot or re-imagining, or at least adding 4e elements to DL.

4.  No DL novels planned past this year, save for the Raistlin Chronicles omnibus.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I just want it to see the orgasm of joy on the Dragonlance Nexus.




You win this week's Nexus Award of Excellence.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 10, 2009)

The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.

Does that clear things up?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2009)

Vael said:


> Out of curiousity, if Dragonlance were the next setting ... what class would likely be in the Dragonlance Player's Guide?




Dragonlance in 3.5 had 4 classes in the setting that weren't in the main D&D books:  mariner, master, mystic, and noble.  

Mariner is now a background, and the role can be duplicated through the fighter or rogue classes.  Possibly ranger as well.  The noble fills much the same role as the warlord.  Likewise, noble is also now a background.  The master was the player character equivalent of the expert, and was based highly on the 3.5 craft, knowledge, perform, and profession skills.  That doesn't translate well to 4e.

My money, then, is on the mystic, which is to the cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard.  In 4e terms, they're divine leaders who draw divine power from within rather than from a deity.  So this may cover more of the roles that the ki power source might have covered had it seen fruition.


----------



## Gog (Jun 10, 2009)

avin said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> 
> I'm also hoping it's not Dragonlance.
> 
> Dark Sun is more appealing to me.




if it is Dark Sun I'll give 4E another try.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.




So we've now narrowed it down to Al-Qadim, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara (lumping in all the sub-settings here), Kara-Tur, Maztica (yeah, right!), Planescape, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer.  



> Does that clear things up?




That eliminates Birthright.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




And there you go dashing all of our hopes for a Red Steel setting.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?





Ooooooo, I've always wanted Louisiana to have it's own game setting. They have those strange, armored opossum already and the Voodoo power source could be quite cool.

Two good sculpts coming back in the "Dragonborn" from GoL and Alusair Obarskyr from Abberations. Loving the Warforged Cleric. 

Where's my Genasi/Swordmage minis?!?!?!?!


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




I guess no Birthirght or Red Steel, then? 

Edit: I apparently missed several posts above mine...


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 10, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> 3.  It's too soon after the Sovereign Press/Margaret Weis Productions era.  The 3.5 license allowed MWP to produce the best Dragonlance gaming products ever.  WotC would practically be "competing" with the prior edition if they did DL now.  Best to let DL sit so that there's a few years in between, and then WotC would be more successful in a reboot or re-imagining, or at least adding 4e elements to DL.




Thats a good argument. 

but a Aurak mini makes no sense without Dragonlance, and those minis are a 4ed acessory after all..  Anyway, them could be in Draconomicon II, metallic eggs and stuff.. but why make ANOTHER dragon-hibrid for 4 ed??? they are THAT popular ??? 

I love dragonlance. But i'm suporting Dark Sun on that on.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




GAHHH!!!  Sometimes I like ya Rouse, and sometimes I could just _murderize_ ya!


----------



## C_M2008 (Jun 10, 2009)

One more letter............???????????


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 10, 2009)

But, but, but I love Birthright! *starts throwing a tantrum


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 10, 2009)

You know, since draconians were created from the eggs of chromatic dragons, draconians could be making an appearance in _Draconomicon II_.  Just saying.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 10, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> The Weis & Hickman seminar is about the 25th anniversary of Dragonlance. Nothing to do with a 4e version of DL.



 That we know of.  It seems like a pretty good place for them to announce something.



> Minotaurs are in many worlds, so I wouldn't use that as evidence. That being said, it's my belief that Dragonlance _perfected_ the minotaur. Of course, as the guy who wrote the most about minotaurs in the 3.5 gaming books, I'm extremely biased.



No other setting features minotaurs quite in the same way that Dragonlance does.  Before DL, minotaurs used to hang out in mazes and wear nothing but an axe. 



> Raistlin is one of the two most popular D&D characters, right up there with Drizzt. I think that's why you saw his 4e stats.



Not going to argue this point, but don't you think we would have seen someone like Mordenkainen or Rary or something along with him?




> Personally, I think Dark Sun is more likely at this point for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. The Prism Pentad novels have just been re-released. Why do that now unless you're gearing up to getting people into Dark Sun?
> 
> ...




1.  Perhaps because in order to hang on to their copyrights they have to rerelease stuff every so often.  Plus, don't you think they would have released the books next year to tie-in with the setting?

2.  Since when did Dark Sun have a monopoly on Psionics.  For all we know, the only reason they are in PHB3 not PHB4 is for Eberron's sake.

3.  If you follow that logic, they wouldn't have released Eberron either, since it would compete with its 3.5e stuff.

4.  Neither does Dark Sun though...


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 10, 2009)

C_M2008 said:


> One more letter............???????????





OK since you asked 

[sblock] $ [/sblock]


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> OK since you asked
> 
> [sblock] $ [/sblock]




Ah, so it's $pelljammer, with a new old school emphasis on greedy PCs out looking to make a fast gp.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 10, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> OK since you asked
> 
> [sblock] $ [/sblock]



 Wait, an S with a line through it, meaning S is not in the name?

That gets rid of Mystara, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Spelljammer!

That leaves, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Maztica, and Ravenloft.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 11, 2009)

Or Dark $un with an emphasis on the merchant houses. Or Plane$cape with an emphasis on the trade routes of the multiverse and the Merkhants. Or it is actually a setting that will be profitable *gasps.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 11, 2009)

Well, crud, that means no Hollow World, either. I don't know why people missed that one, it's just begging to dominate the marketplace!

Hmm... with that last clue, could it be T$R??? You can play fledgling game designers struggling to survive in their points of light within a failing RPG company!


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 11, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Well, crud, that means no Hollow World, either. I don't know why people missed that one, it's just begging to dominate the marketplace!
> 
> Hmm... with that last clue, could it be T??? You can play fledgling game designers struggling to survive in their points of light within a failing RPG company!



 Hollow World=Mystara.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonlance? That must be in order to profit from the popularity gained from the movie, right?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> And there you go dashing all of our hopes for a Red Steel setting.




They mentioned Red Steel on the Q&A with Chris Perkins and James Wyatt on the latest episode of The Tome Show.  Chris Perkins pretty much laughed off the idea of Red Steel being the next setting.

I imagine that would become part of Mystara anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.




Did someone buy a vowel, Pat?







RSTLNE! You know how this game is played.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Yick. I really, really hope it isn't Dragonlance. Especially given how thoroughly and repeatedly the novels have trashed the setting by this point. If it _is_ Dragonlance, I hope it's a reboot to the start of Chronicles or Legends.
> 
> Dragonlance had some excellent novels, but I've never been sold on it as a setting for RPGs. Dark Sun had craptastic novels but it was an awesome setting.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can see how they might re-release Dragonlance in an effort to leverage the popularity of the novels... sigh.




I agree. the Dragonlance books were good, I really enjoyed them, but as a setting to play D&D in, it blows chunks, it's was too "tame". 
Dragonlance would be bested played as a "low magic" setting, IMHO, but how could you do that with 4th ed rules? 

Dark Sun was the opposite, an _amazing _setting and most of the books blowed chunks!  

Dark Sun though, they'd absolutely have to, by default, "ban" much of the import of 4th ed new races etc. _Unless_, as I've started doing, allowing lots of "mutations"...folk who may appear human, but aren't, etc. 
Pal wanted to play a goliath in my 4th ed Dark Sun game, but the don't fit in...then I thought, wait a minute, mutation is a key feature of the official lore of Dark SUn (Pristine Tower and is mentioned in original set)..so why not allow PCs to have a different race than normal, but, they usually look like the normal races, or indeed do look like the race they chose.
A tiefling-as-a-human works fine, for example.

Although I avoid completely the "offical novel-based history of Athas" (whcih I abhor) I love the idea of Darwinism gone mad, and magic and other forces spawning mutations, which would epxlain all the weird beasties as is noted by The Wanderer. (I have the mindflayers as the cause of all of Athas' woes, a plot by them to put out the Sun, went awry an aeon ago, unleashing psionics and defiling magic)

Dark Sun only works when it's kept gritty, enclosed, and very different from normal D&D "high fantasy" settings.
The races are very different, and that's part of what makes it so good.

The re-release of the Dark sun novels, and PHB3 having psionics suggests more Dark Sun. Also, miniatures form other settings have ben nout before, like Raistlin and Strahd for DDM (Strahd's mini is..meh).

The draconians from Krynn were a great set of monster races, IMHO, and would do well in most D&D settings.  So I'd like to see them as minis  But yes that mini's paint looks dreadful, ugh. 

Alas, Human-sized DD minis paint jobs tend to look awful, very often, IMHO, due to small size making painting harder for who ever does it on a mass production scale. 
Shame, as some of the miniatures are good, I particullarly love the goblin delver in recent ones!! Reminds me os much of Nodwick, rofl!! If I was still painting minis, I'd love to get a similar one from Reaper Minis or such.






I adore minotaurs as a PC race, and the Dragonlance ones inspired me ot make my own for my homebrew setting (sort of Viking-like but mostly good natured, who're the originators of the unarmed martial arts of the setting as their monks are the most esteemed "holy" folk in their culture, for overcoming their raging furies)





Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




Giant Space Hamsters!!!! It's SPELLJAMMER!!! 
I want Boo in space, yes I do, !



Scott_Rouse said:


> OK since you asked
> 
> [sblock] $ [/sblock]




Ok, gotta be Dark Sun: sell defeated foes as slaves for much $$$!!
So, exactly how do you work out how much a captured templar works into a treasure parcel, when sold as a slave?
Muhaha


----------



## avin (Jun 11, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> OK since you asked
> 
> [sblock] $ [/sblock]




Ok, I hate you now 

I can hint it too: there are HUMANS in the setting.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> 1.  Perhaps because in order to hang on to their copyrights they have to rerelease stuff every so often.  Plus, don't you think they would have released the books next year to tie-in with the setting?




I can see this, though maybe the other Dark Sun series is scheduled for next year.



> 2.  Since when did Dark Sun have a monopoly on Psionics.  For all we know, the only reason they are in PHB3 not PHB4 is for Eberron's sake.




Dark Sun doesn't have the monopoly on psionics.  However, when you mix the words "setting" and "psionics," Dark Sun is the first setting to come to mind.  It was the first setting to thoroughly integrate psionics.  

I was glad when Eberron started using psionics as well.



> 3.  If you follow that logic, they wouldn't have released Eberron either, since it would compete with its 3.5e stuff.




There's a difference.  DL was licensed, Eberron wasn't.  Eberron would then come across as a continuation of the setting into a new edition.  Dragonlance would _appear_ (key word) to be taken away from the DL creators, who know the setting best.  If WotC produces anything less than MWP quality in terms of story and continuity, there could be a backlash.

When you have the Weis & Hickman names attached to Dragonlance, that's hard for WotC to "compete" with.  The 3.5 era of DL is considered by many DL fans to be the "golden era" of DL gaming.  That's quite a legacy.



> 4.  Neither does Dark Sun though...




There's another DS series, Tribe of One.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 11, 2009)

> There's another DS series, Tribe of One.



 Which hasn't been announced yet.  That makes one Dragonlance novel announced for 2010 (though I though there was word a while back that one of the trilogies was going to get done at the beginning of 2010) compared to no Dark Sun.  We probably won't see what else is planned for either series until Gencon, when they burst the bubble.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2009)

> If WotC produces anything less than MWP quality in terms of story and continuity, there could be a backlash.
> 
> When you have the Weis & Hickman names attached to Dragonlance, that's hard for WotC to "compete" with.




Well, for point #1, obviously they wouldn't care very much. I mean, they tromped all over the Realms much to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from truefans, why would DL be any different? These are brands with a built-in fan base who would buy the books even if they hated them.  And after the "resurrection" of the setting during 3.5, why wouldn't WotC want to bring those players into 4e?

For point #2, they would probably involve those two in the creation of the 4e setting, much like they involved Greenwood in 4e FR, and are involving Baker in Eberron. 

It might not be DL, but I'd say DL has the strongest case so far for it. Anything else would be kind of out of left field right now. Which, again, they might be going for. 

Dark Sun raises more issues than it solves. Everyone wants it, but 4e isn't very sensitive to the "restrictions" nature that makes it a rewarding setting. It's probably in the que, but they're going to spend more time on it than they would on something like FR, DL, or Eberron (or even Greyhawk) where a lot of the work is already done for them by a broad, vocal fanbase, and where the worlds hew a lot closer to what 4e expects out of your game.

DS is more obscure than all of those. It might get published, but I'd guess that they'd go with the tried-and-true settings before mucking about with bugs and defilers and sorcerer-kings.


----------



## Dortmunder (Jun 11, 2009)

I think it unlikely to be Dragonlance for the following reason:

In the podcast mentioned above (4e one year later), they mention that they want to push for Campaign Settings that stand out from the traditional/generic/core/Greyhawk fantasy themes.

Dragonlance is a bit too traditional (earth-like planet, traditional races with their usual stereotypes), while Dark Sun really stands out (hostile desert world, races breaking from their mold [sun worshipping dwarves? desert elven bandits? forest-dwelling savage halflings? half-giants & muls? thri-kreen?] yeah)


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 11, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> I agree it will be Dragonlance, based on the fact that Weis and Hickman will be participating in WotC seminars at GenCon Indy.




Oh God, please say it ain't so! 

Dragonlance 4E would be even worse than Forgotten Realms 4E

whereas Dark Sun 4E, or a whole new setting would be something much better



DarthMouth said:


> but a Aurak mini makes no sense without Dragonlance, and those minis are a 4ed acessory after all.




Not necessarily, remember we got Warforged way before we had 4E Eberron... And we have Grells in 4E and I don't expect we will get Spelljammer 4E



DarthMouth said:


> Anyway, them could be in Draconomicon II, metallic eggs and stuff.. but why make ANOTHER dragon-hibrid for 4 ed??? they are THAT popular ???




Dunno... could be?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Dortmunder said:


> In the podcast mentioned above (4e one year later), they mention that they want to push for Campaign Settings that stand out from the traditional/generic/core/Greyhawk fantasy themes.
> 
> Dragonlance is a bit too traditional (earth-like planet, traditional races with their usual stereotypes), while Dark Sun really stands out (hostile desert world, races breaking from their mold [sun worshipping dwarves? desert elven bandits? forest-dwelling savage halflings? half-giants & muls? thri-kreen?] yeah)




I'm going to disagree with this point to a degree.  While Dragonlance may be based in traditional fantasy, there are enough differences to make it different from your standard vanilla setting.  The setting has a very different flavor.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, for point #1, obviously they wouldn't care very much. I mean, they tromped all over the Realms much to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from truefans, why would DL be any different? These are brands with a built-in fan base who would buy the books even if they hated them.  And after the "resurrection" of the setting during 3.5, why wouldn't WotC want to bring those players into 4e?




I can see this point.  Hell, I know I'd buy any DL4e book that WotC would produce, whether I thought it was as good as the MWP books or not.  



> For point #2, they would probably involve those two in the creation of the 4e setting, much like they involved Greenwood in 4e FR, and are involving Baker in Eberron.




Hopefully, though WotC may want to take the setting in a new direction.



> It might not be DL, but I'd say DL has the strongest case so far for it. Anything else would be kind of out of left field right now. Which, again, they might be going for.




I believe the designers said something to the effect that the setting might be surprising.  



> Dark Sun raises more issues than it solves. Everyone wants it, but 4e isn't very sensitive to the "restrictions" nature that makes it a rewarding setting.




Dark Sun ran into those very problems in 3.5, particularly in regards to the defiler.  

Likewise, Dragonlance has some of those same issues.  DL is based very much on AD&D tropes.  Personally, I thought it was a model world for the 3.5 rules in regards to how prestige classes should be used.  However, the new power sources/classes may be a harder fit, and races without negatives means certain races will be hard to do (i.e. gully dwarves).




> It's probably in the que, but they're going to spend more time on it than they would on something like FR, DL, or Eberron (or even Greyhawk) where a lot of the work is already done for them by a broad, vocal fanbase, and where the worlds hew a lot closer to what 4e expects out of your game.




Dark Sun would be a tougher fit.  I think some things would fit well (i.e. goliaths), but others would be a tough sell (i.e. primal power source).  


Huh, I went into this thread with my mind made up, and now I have cause to doubt myself.  I'm still pretty sure it's not Dragonlance, but I don't know for certain whether it's Dark Sun or not.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 11, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Dragonlance would be bested played as a "low magic" setting, IMHO, but how could you do that with 4th ed rules?




Add a few modifiers at appropriate levels, maybe some feats to let people do cool stuff on crits, and you're good to go.

Not hard at all.

Brad


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonlance = bad financial choice.

Dark Sun = good financial choice.

I'm guessing WotC opts for the latter.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jun 11, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?



I hoped you checked, because wouldn't you be embarrased if it didn't.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jun 11, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> And there you go dashing all of our hopes for a Red Steel setting.



Not quite; it could be referred to as the Savage Coast.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2009)

The talk of "unusual" campaign settings points at DS more than DL, so that keeps DS in the running, I think. I'm nervous about 4e's ability to combine "unusual" with "all-inclusive;" the two ideas are hard to reconcile, and while you can do pallette-swaps and "mechanics are a skeleton to hang any race on" work-arounds, there's a limit. Eladrin, for instance, might be able to keep the raw mechanics (though teleport is weird), but the idea of an arcane-magical archfey from a verdant parallel universe kind of ruins the "sand in your jockstrap, sweat in your eyes, knuckles bloody, lips shriveled" atmosphere in DS, so they wouldn't be able to keep much else -- they'd be too different from "core" eladrin to be able to use "generic eladrin feat #328 from the Complete Faerie" for instance, and part of the all-inclusive 4e philosophy has been that nothing published excludes anything else published. I'm not convinced there's not a solid work-around WotC can figure out -- or a not-so-solid one they'll go with anyway -- but it's riskier.

Speaking of risk...



			
				Mercurius said:
			
		

> Dragonlance = bad financial choice.
> 
> Dark Sun = good financial choice.
> 
> I'm guessing WotC opts for the latter.




Why do you think that? In my mind, it seems you have it entirely backwards. Dragonlance has several editions' worth of sales history, a very successful third party run, and, above all, an already-successful novel line that is celebrating a fortuitous anniversary. Dark Sun may have been good back in the '90s, but it's been more than 10 years since anything new has been made and marketed under that brand, and the last time it was tried, it wasn't exactly a resounding success, in part due to an inclusive philosophy ("PALADINS?! IN DARK SUN?!"). When it was successful, the market and the game were in very different places, so replicating that success would be a gamble. The built-in fan base is smaller, and the weirdness of the world means it's going to turn off more "traditional D&D" fans. 

Dark Sun is a setting you do like a movie studio does a promising indie flick, I'd think: You do it when you're sitting on top of the world with successes and can do what you please, knowing that you can have a mild success or a break-even point and be OK. You do it when you can afford to take a risk (or when you can't afford NOT to!), not when you're looking for a sure thing.

Maybe WotC is able to take that risk in 2010 with the setting book (or perhaps they can't not take the risk). DS would be a very hedged bet to take, given the amount of fan buzz on the thing, so it would make sense.

But DL is a sure bet in comparison. And given the specific publishing industry troubles and the general economic troubles, the "safe bet" would seem more likely to me.

DS is a very real possibility, and I'll be pleasantly amused if they choose it (and very cautious about what it will be...Eberron succeeded only because it was already assuming a lot of the same things 4e was, and FR was hosed even though it wasn't as hostile to those things as DS might be). DL also seems to be a very real possibility, and that seems more like the safe bet.

On the bright side, 4e DL might be the first DL I check out, given that I've never been into the novels enough to get into the setting before, but I've heard enough good juju about it that I figure there's something there.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Dragonlance = bad financial choice.
> 
> Dark Sun = good financial choice.
> 
> I'm guessing WotC opts for the latter.




Care to elaborate on why you feel this way?  

I would say the opposite.  Dragonlance has its fair number of NY Times best-selling novels from which to base a game world on.  It's been around for 25 years and has a decent-sized fan base.   

Dark Sun, in comparison, has only had two series of books, neither of which were NY Times bestsellers, IIRC.  While it certainly seems popular enough, it hasn't had the continuing support that Dragonlance has had.

I can see arguments both ways on which setting is more likely, but from a financial standpoint, I've got to give it to Dragonlance.  

And please don't get me wrong, I'm a Dark Sun fan too.  I'm just trying to look at both settings through the eyes of a corporate executive.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 11, 2009)

But I don't like kender.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 11, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has *an* "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




well, "an" could mean that there is only one "a", which would leave us with  Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> You win this week's Nexus Award of Excellence.




Yay!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> They mentioned Red Steel on the Q&A with Chris Perkins and James Wyatt on the latest episode of The Tome Show.  Chris Perkins pretty much laughed off the idea of Red Steel being the next setting.
> 
> I imagine that would become part of Mystara anyway.




Heh, as much as I love Mystara (including Red Steel & Hollow World), I would be pretty surprised to ever see it in print again.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 11, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> But I don't like kender.




Haven't you noticed halflings are virtual kenders nowadays?


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 11, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> well, "an" could mean that there is only one "a", which would leave us with Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer.




Except he said "an" not "only one". 



> Haven't you noticed halflings are virtual kenders nowadays?



Bingo.  The halfling has been approaching the kender ever since 3e changd them to thin, short, and quick rather than short, fat homebodies.  4e took this a step further by making them resistant to fear.  Oh, but we hate kender though.... what a load of BS.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 11, 2009)

Wait, didn't 3.x Halflings have a +2 on saves vs. fear already? 

And I am not sure it riverboating Halflings are Kender, but I don't know much about either.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 11, 2009)

Draconians are a good monster on it's own, they don't need their original setting. 
There are several other monsters out there that have stepped out of their settings.

I, for one, cannot understand why dragonborn were not called draconians.



I hope it'll not be Dragonlance - there is already a bland generic fantasy setting out there with Forgotten Realms. Give us something special.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jun 11, 2009)

Henrix said:


> I, for one, cannot understand why dragonborn were not called draconians.



Because the draconians have been established by DL as very specific, color-coded evil creatures. They are one of the most iconic parts of that particular setting, and they don't really resemble dragonborn more than superficially.


As for Dragonlance as the next setting... eh. I like the original two trilogies, but I've not been impressed with the way the setting was handled afterwards, both in novels and in gaming products.

Furthermore, I feel that Dragonlance's greatest strength - the novels - are also its biggest weakness. Much like with Middle-Earth, you all too easily end up, or feel like you do, playing second fiddle to the "official" heroes. (Also, Ansalon is _tiny_. It bothers me for some reason.)


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Jun 11, 2009)

I still believe its Dragonlance. I just want it to be. 

WotC will release a Dragonlance Player's Guide, Dragonlance Campaign Setting and 1 start-up adventure. 
I could imagine they give SP a licence to publish 4e dragonlance stuff and so the dragonlance setting would become the most supported 4e setting.

_fingers crossed_


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> I'm going to disagree with this point to a degree.  While Dragonlance may be based in traditional fantasy, there are enough differences to make it different from your standard vanilla setting.  The setting has a very different flavor.




Every setting has its own flavor. Greyhawk has a very different flavor from Forgotten Realms has a very different flavor from Mystara. But they're still all bog-standard quasi-medieval, polytheistic settings with knights in plate and color-coded dragons and elves in the forest and dwarves in the mountains.

Dragonlance is much the same. It's got its own particular brand of quasi-medieval polytheism with knights in plate and color-coded dragons and elves in the forest and dwarves in the mountains, but when you get right down to it, it plays all the usual tropes and it plays them straight.

Compare that to Dark Sun, which is a quasi-classical atheistic setting with no knights and one Dragon and elves in the desert and dwarves in adobe huts. And cannibal halflings. That's what people mean when they say it "stands out" from traditional fantasy.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Maybe WotC is able to take that risk in 2010 with the setting book (or perhaps they can't not take the risk). DS would be a very hedged bet to take, given the amount of fan buzz on the thing, so it would make sense.
> 
> But DL is a sure bet in comparison. And given the specific publishing industry troubles and the general economic troubles, the "safe bet" would seem more likely to me.




Yeah, I have to agree, which makes me sad. I would much, much rather see Dark Sun, or something totally new; I have no interest in Dragonlance as a game setting. But I have to admit that Dragonlance is probably a smarter choice financially.

A spin-off from a popular novel series (which is what the DL setting really is) has a large guaranteed fanbase. Dark Sun's guaranteed fanbase is mostly limited to old-school gamers who remember the brief glory days of the setting from two editions back. Anything else, it'll have to build up from scratch.

Still, for what it's worth, I at least will snap up all the 4E Dark Sun material I can get my hands on; while I can't imagine buying any Dragonlance setting stuff.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 11, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Because the draconians have been established by DL as very specific, color-coded evil creatures. They are one of the most iconic parts of that particular setting, and they don't really resemble dragonborn more than superficially.




It still seems like very minor changes to me, and most of it seems like setting specific fluff.

But dragging a race/monster from a setting and making it generic - we have seen lots of that. Thri-kreen, anyone?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2009)

FWIW, I think DL and 4e might be a pretty good fit. The problems with DL (narratives hogging the spotlight, comic relief races) are things that I think the 4e team could solve in pretty satisfying ways, without necessarily going against what DL had in 3.5. That's part of the reason I'd be willing to give it a spin: i think the 4e team can add a lot to the setting, because there's a lot of room to work that hasn't been covered in previous editions.



			
				Henrix said:
			
		

> But dragging a race/monster from a setting and making it generic - we have seen lots of that. Thri-kreen, anyone?




Of course, 4e has an "every PC race must be a sexy humanoid" mandate, which is a rough fit with thri-krieen (unless the slap mammaries on them like they did the dragonborn ).


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Bingo.  The halfling has been approaching the kender ever since 3e changd them to thin, short, and quick rather than short, fat homebodies.  4e took this a step further by making them resistant to fear.  Oh, but we hate kender though.... what a load of BS.




Ha ha!  Yeah, the halfling in 3e and 4e has had great influence from kender.  Though not exactly a clone, it's pretty close.  What the kender did for halflings was to throw them right into the adventure.  WotC recognized this, so they took the best of the kender, minus the so-called "baggage," and adapted that to halflings.  

It's unfortunate that a few bad players and stereotypes seem to ruin the race for the non-DL gaming audience.  They're really quite fun to play.



Lurks-no-More said:


> Because the draconians have been established by DL as very specific, color-coded evil creatures.




Ah, but the draconians are evolving into their own nation - Teyr.  Plus, don't forget we have the noble draconians too.  Draconians are no longer the evil monsters of old.  



Dausuul said:


> A spin-off from a popular novel series (which is what the DL setting really is)




DL originated with the games.  The novels followed.  That being said, the novels are what popularized the setting, so there's this misconception that the novels came first.



Dausuul said:


> Dark Sun's guaranteed fanbase is mostly limited to old-school gamers who remember the brief glory days of the setting from two editions back. Anything else, it'll have to build up from scratch.




That's a good point, and something I had not thought about.  I keep forgetting that there's a fair number of gamers out there who never played anything pre-3e (and now 4e).  In a way, though, that might mean that Dark Sun is ripe for a re-imagining.  Enough time has passed that they could do it.



Henrix said:


> But dragging a race/monster from a setting and making it generic - we have seen lots of that. Thri-kreen, anyone?




There's a misconception that they're Dark Sun-specific.  Not so.  So while they were made popular in Dark Sun, they actually originated in the Forgotten Realms.

It's kind of like death knights.  They were around prior to Dragonlance.  It's just that Dragonlance made them popular with Lord Soth.


----------



## Derren (Jun 11, 2009)

I like DL and therefore I would not be happy if DL is the next setting. Why? just look at what WotC did to FR. I don't want the same happen to DL.

So until WOtC has proven (with Eberron) that it can 4Eize a setting without trashing it completely and that it doesn't try to "core everything" when it is not appropriate I want the next setting to be not DL.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> DL originated with the games.  The novels followed.  That being said, the novels are what popularized the setting, so there's this misconception that the novels came first.




Oh, I know. The novels originated with the writers playing through the Dragonlance modules. But the novels quickly assumed control, and the setting became dependent on them. There were after all substantial differences between the plot of the modules and the plot of the novels; it was the setting that was retconned to match the novels, not the other way around.

It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it started out as a goose, but at this point, it is to all intents and purposes a duck.



Dragonhelm said:


> That's a good point, and something I had not thought about.  I keep forgetting that there's a fair number of gamers out there who never played anything pre-3e (and now 4e).  In a way, though, that might mean that Dark Sun is ripe for a re-imagining.  Enough time has passed that they could do it.




I quite agree. But it's still a gamble. Dragonlance is guaranteed to sell at least moderately well; Dark Sun could be a total flop.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 11, 2009)

Derren said:


> I like DL and therefore I would not be happy if DL is the next setting. Why? just look at what WotC did to FR.



Made it fresh and interesting? Yeah, God forbid that _that_ would happen to Dragonlance, arguably the only setting that needs it more than FR did. :rollseyes:

As I understand it, DL has done a pretty good job of trashing itself over the past few decades. WotC has a much better track record, so give credit where it's due.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 11, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> well, "an" could mean that there is only one "a", which would leave us with  Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer.




[whisper]Mystara has two 'a's. [/whisper]

I agree that tricksy Rouse meant "just one" 'a' and with his second hint being a *D*ollar *S*ign I call *D*ark *S*un as the quasi-confirmed leak.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Made it fresh and interesting? Yeah, God forbid that _that_ would happen to Dragonlance, arguably the only setting that needs it more than FR did. :rollseyes:
> 
> As I understand it, DL has done a pretty good job of trashing itself over the past few decades. WotC has a much better track record, so give credit where it's due.




I do.  To MWP, for not only bringing Dragonlance back to its roots, but also moving it forward in fresh and interesting ways.  Their work has been exemplary.

I am, of course, biased.  ;-)


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Making drastic changes to the setting to 4E-ize it would hardly be a novelty. The books have already torn down and rebuilt pretty much every element of the original by now. If a 4E DL setting were to be made based on the state of the world in the books right this instant, with nothing added and nothing taken away, it would bear only a passing resemblance to the Dragonlance of "Chronicles" and "Legends."

Raistlin would still find his way into it, though. Doesn't matter how many times he dies, Raistlin will always come back in the end. Dragonlance can no more get rid of him than FR can get rid of Drizzt.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 11, 2009)

But unlike Drizzt noone wants to get rid of Raistlin


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 11, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> But unlike Drizzt noone wants to get rid of Raistlin




  Speak for yourself.  Personally, I was disappointed to see the Archmunchkin show up in _Dragons of a Vanished Moon_.

  As for DL making money . . . maybe. The setting's 'failed' or nearly so several times in the past--anecdotal evidence suggests that the module sales fell off once the novels got ahead of them, and regardless, the line's gone down to 'life support' or all-out cancellation several times, and has been 'relaunched' four times. (_Time of the Dragon_ counts, IMO, because of the fact that virtually nothing for DL was published in the game line a year or two before that. _Tales of the Lance_ was marketed as the big relaunch, then there were the Fifth Age game and the 3.5E version--and WotC waffled a bit on doing _anything_ with the setting for 3E until SP/MWP made the deal to take up support.)

  I'm sure the 3.5E line did well enough for MWP--but well enough for MWP and well enough by WotC are probably an order of magnitude's difference or more.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Speak for yourself.  Personally, I was disappointed to see the Archmunchkin show up in _Dragons of a Vanished Moon_.




In the "War of Souls" trilogy, my pet theory was that the mysterious One True God would turn out to be alternate-timeline Raistlin, who'd found a way to slip out of his devastated world in the wake of the Chaos War and rejoin the primary timestream.

But of course, it was just Takhisis again, and Raistlin came back to help stop her. Again. Blah.


----------



## ferratus (Jun 11, 2009)

I think there is an opportunity to reboot Dragonlance back to the Chronicles, but take all the good ideas from the ongoing series and merge it all together with 4e principles.

There have been so many new types of magic and story elements introduced that pretty much every 4e concept can be accommodated, and most of it can be woven together to work with the original six novels, and the historical novels (Elven and Dwarven Nations, Kingpriest Trilogy, Ergoth Trilogy, etc). 

The question is how much fidelity should be kept to the 1e conceits.  In 3e for example, the 3.5 DL designers concluded that wielding only a staff or dagger was merely a custom of the Order of High Sorcery, because it got in the way of multi-classing and you needed a crossbow at low levels to keep from blowing all your spells.  Similar compromises would have to be made in 4e


----------



## ferratus (Jun 11, 2009)

Of course, as a long term dragonlance fan, I wouldn't mind some experimentation with setting concepts, as long as it is interesting and consistent.

A couple of examples:

The Deva might be interesting as emerging in the world during the WotL to herald the return of the gods of light, with a backstory of being the clerics who left the world before the Cataclysm.   

The Order of High Sorcery, rather than being divided by alignment, is instead divided into Warlocks, Wizards and Invokers (Black, Red and White Robes), so you can play a black robe without necessarily being evil, and the villain isn't necessarily colour coded for your convenience.

I think those are examples of 4e mechanics that are new and different to the setting, but in both cases can support existing themes.


----------



## Stogoe (Jun 11, 2009)

If the setting turns out to be Dragonlance, and if there is word one in the books about Kender, I will flat out ignore the existence of the setting.  Kender are no fun in a group - their schtick is "steal from the other players and cause the absolute most trouble possible."  Not a fun experince for anyone but the kender's player.

I never played any 2e, but I would appreciate Al-Qadim or Dark Sun as the campaign setting.  What would be the new class for Dragonlance, the Mystic?


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 11, 2009)

It's not so much the kender's fault but the fact that the race facilitates this kind of gameplay by problem players giving them an excuse for their problematic behaviour. Problem players will always be a problem by default anyway, kender just makes it slightly easier for them.

And yes I think DL because of the dozen cataclysms is very modular and could facilitate a lot of classes.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> There's a misconception that they're Dark Sun-specific.  Not so.  So while they were made popular in Dark Sun, they actually originated in the Forgotten Realms.




They originated in the Monster Cards supplement for AD&D (1st edition), and had no association with the as-yet unpublished Forgotten Realms.

As for Dragonlance, as someone who has no stake in it and is not a fan, it sure does sound like the evidence is showing it will be the next setting.  Any concerns over it not "fitting" are pointless, since WotC will just manipulate events in Krynn to accommodate the 4E baseline, as they did with FR.  It's not like Krynn has a shortage of cataclysmic world changes in it's history.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Stogoe said:


> Kender are no fun in a group - their schtick is "steal from the other players and cause the absolute most trouble possible."  Not a fun experince for anyone but the kender's player.




If I was to boil down the kender to a single word, that would be "curiosity."  That's their schtick.  That translates to pilfering.  Problem is, players often miss the point or just use the kender as an excuse to rob.  I've seen people play thieves back in 2e who would rob you blind as well, and they weren't kender.

As a DM, I would make certain that players who want to play a kender really get what it means and don't use it as an excuse.  The race isn't for everyone.



> What would be the new class for Dragonlance, the Mystic?




Most likely.  See an earlier post by me on this thread regarding the DL-specific classes.



Jack Colby said:


> They originated in the Monster Cards supplement for AD&D (1st edition), and had no association with the as-yet unpublished Forgotten Realms.




Ah, I didn't realize thri-kreen went back that far.  I remember first seeing them in the 2e Realms Monstrous Compendium appendix.



> As for Dragonlance, as someone who has no stake in it and is not a fan, it sure does sound like the evidence is showing it will be the next setting.  Any concerns over it not "fitting" are pointless, since WotC will just manipulate events in Krynn to accommodate the 4E baseline, as they did with FR.  It's not like Krynn has a shortage of cataclysmic world changes in it's history.




Which is why I'm a bit nervous about the idea of WotC touching Dragonlance.  I could be wrong, they could do a stellar job.  However, they don't have the same connection to Dragonlance that MWP (and their freelancers!) have.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Ha ha!  Yeah, the halfling in 3e and 4e has had great influence from kender.  Though not exactly a clone, it's pretty close.  What the kender did for halflings was to throw them right into the adventure.  WotC recognized this, so they took the best of the kender, minus the so-called "baggage," and adapted that to halflings.
> 
> It's unfortunate that a few bad players and stereotypes seem to ruin the race for the non-DL gaming audience.  They're really quite fun to play.




Well you know, that kind of happens when you make an entire race of subconscious kleptomaniacs with no regard for personal property (or space apparently) under the protection of gods. Sometimes you just have to sit back and ask "What were they thinking when they made this?" It seems as if the purpose of Kender is simply to annoy everything else, which is even backed up mechanically.

Incidentally those traits aren't shared with halflings. Being skinny and adventurous just makes them plausible for PC usage. Though I expect it has more to do with trying to differentiate them from Tolken's Hobbits than anything else.

Also, in before character exceptions that prove the rule by rebelling and/or  otherwise defying Kender culture.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 11, 2009)

Who knows?

They might do something completely out of left field, such as releasing a 4E version of d20 Modern (instead of Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc ...).

Though I can only really see them (WotC) doing something this radical, in the case of the 4E versions of Forgotten Realms and Eberron not satisfying their own sales expectations.


----------



## stonegod (Jun 11, 2009)

Jack Colby said:


> As for Dragonlance, as someone who has no stake in it and is not a fan, it sure does sound like the evidence is showing it will be the next setting.  Any concerns over it not "fitting" are pointless, since WotC will just manipulate events in Krynn to accommodate the 4E baseline, as they did with FR.  It's not like Krynn has a shortage of cataclysmic world changes in it's history.



And, therein, is the second biggest problem w/ 4E DL (the first being its 1E straightjackets---yes, you can remove them, but then is it really DL or DL-inspired?). In, what, two generations you've had:
- The War of the Lance
- The Summer of Chaos
- The Dragon Wars
- The War of Souls

If I lived in Krynn, I'd try to avoid procreation: Its not going to end well!


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

stonegod said:


> And, therein, is the second biggest problem w/ 4E DL (the first being its 1E straightjackets---yes, you can remove them, but then is it really DL or DL-inspired?). In, what, two generations you've had:
> - The War of the Lance
> - The Summer of Chaos
> - The Dragon Wars
> ...




And the existence of time travel does not help. I never could get straight what all was going on with the timelines in the War of Souls.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

ggroy said:


> They might do something completely out of left field, such as releasing a 4E version of d20 Modern (instead of Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc ...).




Nope, there's no "a" in d20 Modern.  Though there is in Urban Arcana.  

My new prediction, based on nothing but snarkiness and the desire to be different, is that the 2010 setting is indeed Dragonlance, but is not Ansalon.  It's Taladas!  The letter "a" appears three times, so mathematically I can't lose!


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 11, 2009)

ferratus said:


> The Order of High Sorcery, rather than being divided by alignment, is instead divided into Warlocks, Wizards and Invokers (Black, Red and White Robes), so you can play a black robe without necessarily being evil, and the villain isn't necessarily colour coded for your convenience.




oh. ma. gosh. i LOVE that idea!

I just want a reboot... if they start the world just the way it is now... i will not be buying it... if they reboot it... happy days!

(but I think there is more evidence pointing to a oriental world)


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

stonegod said:


> And, therein, is the second biggest problem w/ 4E DL (the first being its 1E straightjackets---yes, you can remove them, but then is it really DL or DL-inspired?). In, what, two generations you've had:
> - The War of the Lance
> - The Summer of Chaos
> - The Dragon Wars
> ...




The War of the Lance set up the world, so really, only two major changes since - the Chaos War (30 years after WotL) and the War of Souls (70 years after WotL).  The first through third dragon wars are ancient history.  So more than two generations there.

Compare that to the real word.  World War I and World War II were just a generation apart.  How many wars have there been since?

Or compare that to Star Wars, with the Old Republic in one generation, the Rebellion Era in another, and the New Republic/New Jedi Order in a third.  130 years after that is the Legacy Era.  Sounds like they have galaxy-shattering events every generation.  

As for "a dozen Cataclysms left and right," that's overstated.  The Cataclysm was part of the backstory of the world, and was there from day one.  The SAGA design team called the end of the Chaos War and the introduction of the dragon overlords the "Second Cataclysm" (which I personally feel is a misnomer).  And no, the War of Souls was not a cataclysm.  Yes, the gods returned (minus Paladine and Takhisis), but that was to set up the current post-War of Souls era in the Age of Mortals.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

ferratus said:


> The Order of High Sorcery, rather than being divided by alignment, is instead divided into Warlocks, Wizards and Invokers (Black, Red and White Robes), so you can play a black robe without necessarily being evil, and the villain isn't necessarily colour coded for your convenience.




That goes against 25 years of Dragonlance history.  Making some changes or reinterpreting, I can see.  So if you want the Wizards of High Sorcery to include wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, that's fine.  If you want those divided by order, it may be a stretch, but I can kind of see it.

But to include a divine class in an arcane organization and totally ignore alignment, which the WoHS are based on?  That's a stretch.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Nope, there's no "a" in d20 Modern.  Though there is in Urban Arcana.




I don't know how WotC would incorporate d20 Modern into the Points of Light setting, without looking awkward.  The easiest solution would be to release 4E d20 Modern as a completely separate game, independent of Points of Light and D&D modulo the structure of the 4E rules.

With a limited number of full time staff and freelancers, they do have to make decisions on how and where to allocate their limited resources and whether that will translate into sales figures they are satisfied with.  The days of rpg companies selling "dogshit" masquerading as rpg books that some people would buy, has come and gone many years ago.


----------



## Derren (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> That goes against 25 years of Dragonlance history.




Yet it is also exactly the thing WotC would do.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 11, 2009)

Derren said:


> Yet it is also exactly the thing WotC would do.




How much "mutilation" was done on Dragonlance during the 3.5E era?

I only had several Dragonlance books and modules from the days of 1E AD&D.  I never picked up any of the 3.5E era Dragonlance books.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

My guess would be that all arcane classes would fall under the rubric of the Orders of High Sorcery, with the Test coming at the end of Heroic tier, and a separate paragon path for each of the White, Red, and Black Robes.

That's assuming the Orders and the Test still exist, of course.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> I do.  To MWP, for not only bringing Dragonlance back to its roots, but also moving it forward in fresh and interesting ways.  Their work has been exemplary.
> 
> I am, of course, biased.  ;-)



Everything I've heard about DL suggests that its roots really were a lot stronger than many of the more recent developments. With that in mind, a 4E version of Dragonlance will be the first version of it that I explore, and so I naturally hope for it to be interesting; thus, I think I'd like to see 4E's Dragonlance focus upon whatever parts originally made it great, balanced with the basic assumptions of 4E (the world-axis metacosmology, many types of magic, the existance of "monstrous" player races, etc.).

What irks me is when certain individuals who are openly hostile to 4E make pejorative comments towards either that system or WotC for publishing it. I happen to like 3.5E, but I like 4E even more, and I'm generally quite happy with how WotC handles things. I resent when these individuals antagonize my choice of game, or suggest that a 4E version of given setting (say, for example, Dragonlance) would inherently be inferior on account of merely being 4E or published by WotC. I happen to think they mostly do a great job.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 11, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I don't know how WotC would incorporate d20 Modern into the Points of Light setting, without looking awkward.  The easiest solution would be to release 4E d20 Modern as a completely separate game, independent of Points of Light and D&D modulo the structure of the 4E rules.




WotC doesn't have to "integrate" any setting into a points-of-light mode.  The core setting is points-of-light, and the Realms was given a makeover to be more points-of-lighty . . . but Eberron has suffered extremely minor changes (mostly additive, like, "where do dragonborn and eladrin come from).  Eberron has elements of, but is not, a points-of-light setting.

I don't think we'll see an redo of Urban Arcana anytime soon (but would love it), but if/when it happens, there is no need to make it more of a points-of-light setting.  On the other hand, this is perfectly possible to do in a "real world" setting like this.  Evil is everywhere, the majority of the populace is unaware, you are one of the few who know the truth, and there are precious few places where you can find refuge . . .


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> My guess would be that all arcane classes would fall under the rubric of the Orders of High Sorcery, with the Test coming at the end of Heroic tier, and a separate paragon path for each of the White, Red, and Black Robes.
> 
> That's assuming the Orders and the Test still exist, of course.




They do.  In AD&D, the Test happened between 3rd and 4th level.  In 3.5, the Test typically happened at 4th level, with your 5th level being when you could take the Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class.

You could apply the 3.5 scenario to 4th edition with paragon paths, but that's an awfully long time to wait to be able to play a WoHS.  Some games never even reach paragon levels.  It would stand to reason, then, that the Test be taken at lower levels, gaining access to the ranks of the WoHS.  Then the paragon paths could be reserved for specialty roles, such as renegade hunters or the Kingfishers.

In fact, I think organizations in DL will likely be separated from paragon paths, save for specialized roles.

Now, as for the arcane classes and the WoHS, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree slightly.  In SAGA, they introduced sorcery and mysticism, which were essentially "replacement magic" for arcane and divine magic, respectfully.  After the War of Souls, Dragonlance found itself with four types of magic - 2 arcane and 2 divine.  

What that means, is that in 3.5, the sorcerer wasn't drawing from the arcane magic of the moons.  He drew his power from the ambient arcane magic of the world itself.  Unless continuity is thrown out, then the sorcerer would exist outside of the WoHS.  This adds a nifty dynamic and conflict.  

Warlocks, then, would be problematic since they make pacts.  Now, if you had one pact per moon god, they would work out fine.  

As for swordmages..."A warrior has his sword.  A wizard has his magic."  They really don't fit the theme of the Orders.  I could see them being practitioners of the same wild sorcery that sorcerers use.

Artificers and bards also work out in Dragonlance, though in both cases, I would also go with wild sorcery.  One of the SAGA schools of sorcery dealt with the same sort of stuff that artificers deal with, and bards in the WoHS just seems weird.

So yeah, all the arcane classes can work in Dragonlance, the warlock requiring the most work.  There may need to be some tweaking, but that's the case with any world.  With the existing setup on magic, there can be some nifty dynamics.  

That being said, if there is a total reboot, then it may be best to lump everything together under the WoHS.  *shrugs*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Nope, there's no "a" in d20 Modern.  Though there is in Urban Arcana.
> 
> My new prediction, based on nothing but snarkiness and the desire to be different, is that the 2010 setting is indeed Dragonlance, but is not Ansalon.  It's Taladas!  The letter "a" appears three times, so mathematically I can't lose!




Maybe it is "Advanced d20 Modern"? Or "d20 Modern Advanced" or "d20 Advanced Modern"? 

Well; I would would love a D&D4ified d20 Modern.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 11, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> Well you know, that kind of happens when you make an entire race of subconscious kleptomaniacs with no regard for personal property (or space apparently) under the protection of gods. Sometimes you just have to sit back and ask "What were they thinking when they made this?" It seems as if the purpose of Kender is simply to annoy everything else, which is even backed up mechanically.




Well, remember that DL was a novel first, and then a campaign setting. While having ultra-powerful main characters and annoying races like Kender and Gully dwarves work in novels, where you can use them to further the plot, develop unique worldviews, and such things these plot devices sometimes do not translate well to RPGs.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Everything I've heard about DL suggests that its roots really were a lot stronger than many of the more recent developments. With that in mind, a 4E version of Dragonlance will be the first version of it that I explore, and so I naturally hope for it to be interesting; thus, I think I'd like to see 4E's Dragonlance focus upon whatever parts originally made it great, balanced with the basic assumptions of 4E (the world-axis metacosmology, many types of magic, the existance of "monstrous" player races, etc.).




You're absolutely right, the main focus of Dragonlance has always been the War of the Lance.  This begs the question of whether they will go back to this era, or create a new starting point like they did with the Realms.  Hard to say, though I'd guess they'd go with the WotL era due to the popularity of Chronicles and Legends.



> What irks me is when certain individuals who are openly hostile to 4E make pejorative comments towards either that system or WotC for publishing it. I happen to like 3.5E, but I like 4E even more, and I'm generally quite happy with how WotC handles things. I resent when these individuals antagonize my choice of game, or suggest that a 4E version of given setting (say, for example, Dragonlance) would inherently be inferior on account of merely being 4E or published by WotC. I happen to think they mostly do a great job.




I hope none of my comments have been misconstrued as anti-4e or anti-WotC.  If so, then I apologize if I have inadvertently given that impression.

Like you, I like 3.5e, but I like 4e even more.  I am also a fan of WotC.  Nothing against them.  I've enjoyed the 4e products quite a bit.  

That being said, I'm also one of the freelance writers for MWP who helped to shape and mold Dragonlance for 3.5, as well as the administrator for the Dragonlance Nexus fan website.  I've been a Dragonlance fan since the early 90s.  So the setting is very near and dear to my heart.

When I look at 4e for Dragonlance, I know that WotC would put out a good product.  Yet I also have certain misgivings, based largely on the Realms reboot.  I also have questions about certain items, like how to do gully dwarves when there are no negative ability score modifiers.

While WotC may do a good job, MWP would be better still (in my opinion).  The reason I say this is because MWP and their freelances are vested in the setting.  They know the setting inside out, and worked hard to integrate 3.5-isms into the setting.  The MWP era of Dragonlance gaming is considered by many fans to be the "golden age of Dragonlance gaming."  

So that's where I'm coming from on this.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, remember that DL was a novel first, and then a campaign setting. While having ultra-powerful main characters and annoying races like Kender and Gully dwarves work in novels, where you can use them to further the plot, develop unique worldviews, and such things these plot devices sometimes do not translate well to RPGs.




Heh... see previous discussion on this point. DL was a series of AD&D modules first, and then a series of novels (which totally eclipsed the modules in popularity and became the canonical authority on the world), and finally a campaign setting sourcebook. Kender were introduced in the original modules because the creators of the world didn't feel halflings were appropriate to the setting; but I don't know how many of their more vexing characteristics were introduced there.

Raistlin was also introduced in the modules (as a playable character, in fact), but his ascension to Master of Past and of Present was a novel thing.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> While WotC may do a good job, MWP would be better still (in my opinion).  The reason I say this is because MWP and their freelances are vested in the setting.  They know the setting inside out, and worked hard to integrate 3.5-isms into the setting.  The MWP era of Dragonlance gaming is considered by many fans to be the "golden age of Dragonlance gaming."




Actually, that raises a question in my mind. Do any of the current WotC design team members have any previous experience writing Dragonlance material (of any edition)? I never played prior to 3e, and while I read the DL novels, not so much the RPG itself, so I don't have a clue as to who might have worked on what in the past. I'd be honestly curious to know.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> You're absolutely right, the main focus of Dragonlance has always been the War of the Lance.  This begs the question of whether they will go back to this era, or create a new starting point like they did with the Realms.  Hard to say, though I'd guess they'd go with the WotL era due to the popularity of Chronicles and Legends.




Another interesting possibility would be to go way back into the Age of Light, with Huma and the original Dragonlance, which hasn't been explored much; or even earlier into the Age of Dreams. That would neatly avoid all the wackiness introduced by the later novels, without directly challenging their canonicity, and would still offer plenty of scope to reinvent the setting for 4E.



Dragonhelm said:


> I hope none of my comments have been misconstrued as anti-4e or anti-WotC.  If so, then I apologize if I have inadvertently given that impression.




I think that particular comment was aimed at Derren.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Kender were introduced in the original modules because the creators of the world didn't feel halflings were appropriate to the setting; but I don't know how many of their more vexing characteristics were introduced there.




Kender were introduced for a few reasons.  While the hobbit-like halflings of the time hid in their hobbit-holes and didn't want to adventure, kender were all about exploring the world and discovering adventure.  

Their handling aspect came about due to Tracy Hickman's own moral quandaries with the thief class.  He wanted to find a way to do thiefly things without robbing people blind.  Kender filled this role by being incredibly curious.  Then when questioned about their pilfering, they would come back with an excuse - one that they thoroughly believed themselves!  

It is unfortunate, then, that they have gained a bad reputation from player abuse.  Kender can be a thoroughly enjoyable race.


----------



## GAAAHHH (Jun 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> That goes against 25 years of Dragonlance history.  Making some changes or reinterpreting, I can see.  So if you want the Wizards of High Sorcery to include wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, that's fine.  If you want those divided by order, it may be a stretch, but I can kind of see it.
> 
> But to include a divine class in an arcane organization and totally ignore alignment, which the WoHS are based on?  That's a stretch.




How is this against Dragonlance History?  The Gods of Magic (who are also the moons) grant access to magic.  Technically, Arcane magic in dragonlance comes from a Divine power source.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 12, 2009)

GAAAHHH said:


> How is this against Dragonlance History?  The Gods of Magic (who are also the moons) grant access to magic.  Technically, Arcane magic in dragonlance comes from a Divine power source.




They only grant arcane magic.  They don't grant divine magic.

As for the alignment thing, that's the very dividing line of the three orders of magic.  White Robes = good, Red Robes = neutral, Black Robes = evil.  This is a core assumption of the setting.  So to say that suddenly, robes are based on what class you are, well that goes against this very theme.

In a way, having invokers in the WoHS would be like having a fighter in the Circle of Eight.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 12, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> They only grant arcane magic.  They don't grant divine magic.



 another words they are no more divine then warlocks...


> As for the alignment thing, that's the very dividing line of the three orders of magic.  White Robes = good, Red Robes = neutral, Black Robes = evil.  This is a core assumption of the setting.  So to say that suddenly, robes are based on what class you are, well that goes against this very theme.




not really. Warlocks are 'dark' theamed, and Wizards can be fluffed to be neutral (red), and they can create a Arcane class that works for white...
remember alingment is no longer needed in the mechanic...evil paladins, chaoictic monks...lawful bards... so unaligned white robes, and evil red robes, and good black robes


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 12, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> T
> You could apply the 3.5 scenario to 4th edition with paragon paths, but that's an awfully long time to wait to be able to play a WoHS.  Some games never even reach paragon levels.  It would stand to reason, then, that the Test be taken at lower levels, gaining access to the ranks of the WoHS.  Then the paragon paths could be reserved for specialty roles, such as renegade hunters or the Kingfishers.




I would speculate that the best way to do handle it would be like the spellscarred in Forgotten Realms. At 4th level, you can take a multiclass feat appropriate to an order. To advance in the order, you take further feats and then paragon tier gets you into High Wizard of <insert color>.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 12, 2009)

Why do people hate kender?

BAD WORDS AHOY:

_Mod edit:
Links removed.  If you can't post it here, don't link to it either.  Thank you._


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 12, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> What irks me is when certain individuals who are openly hostile to 4E make pejorative comments towards either that system or WotC for publishing it.




Find the joy of the ignore feature.  Really makes threads like these a lot better.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> not really. Warlocks are 'dark' theamed, and Wizards can be fluffed to be neutral (red), and they can create a Arcane class that works for white...




Sorcerer?

Brad


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> not really. Warlocks are 'dark' theamed, and Wizards can be fluffed to be neutral (red), and they can create a Arcane class that works for white...
> remember alingment is no longer needed in the mechanic...evil paladins, chaoictic monks...lawful bards... so unaligned white robes, and evil red robes, and good black robes




I see where you're coming from, but you're mixing classes with organizations.  Wizards can be of any alignment.  The robe color represents what that alignment is.  Would we allow evil Harpers?  Purple Knights of Cormyr who are evil?

Otherwise, there's no reason for the differentiation between the robes.  They might as well all be wearing purple.  

Remember, Dragonlance's core theme is the fight between good and evil and the Balance that must be maintained between the two.  The gods are divided to represent this.  This includes the moon gods, each one a patron of one of the Orders of High Sorcery.



Dedekind said:


> I would speculate that the best way to do handle it would be like the spellscarred in Forgotten Realms. At 4th level, you can take a multiclass feat appropriate to an order. To advance in the order, you take further feats and then paragon tier gets you into High Wizard of <insert color>.




We've discussed that very idea on the Dragonlance boards.  It would certainly work out thematically.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 12, 2009)

While I still think the setting could be Dark Sun (or even something more out of left field), I do think DL is a strong contender for potential setting.

But the races to have a bad rap.

I share this sentiment, but I would totally trust the 4e team to be able to keep those races fun and comical WITHOUT having them be pure comic relief. The reason is three-fold: Solid DM advice combined with "open to interpretation" mechanics and a desire to fix what is wrong. 

There's no real reason that 4e's halflings and kender can't be each other. The kleptomaniac kender stereotype (like a lot of these comic relief stereotypes) is a _player_ problem, not a _race_ problem, and there's no reason that a 4e DL couldn't play up the "curious, bold, adventurous" angle and downplay the "no sense of personal property" angle (or even mostly remove it entirely: "Kender aren't idiots and they learn how to avoid annoying other adventuring companions quickly, or they die.") Combine this with solid DM advice for handling comedy and inter-party conflict in the game (which any DL DM's guide would be remiss in not including), and you have a recepie that fixes that kleptomania problem. 

Tinker gnomes hurting themselves and gully dwarves being unlovable can be flavor without any mechanical support. "Oh, your Tinker Gnome artificer uses an invention that works well enough to activate the power and also leaves you covered in slime and oil" doesn't need any mechanical ramifications. Gully dwarves don't need negative ability score modifiers: if they're NPC's exclusively, it can mostly be dealt with in flavor text and art. If they can be PC's, well, same thing.  PC's also have the "I'm a hero, I don't have to be lame" justification, and buttmonkey status can always be reinforced through the racial powers or somesuch. 

The 4e team is very good at knocking things down and building them back up anew. The new form isn't always very pleasing to everyone, but DL would have the advantage that the "new form" has no reason to be different from the "old form," aside from getting rid of some of the more obnoxious player problems. Noble Draconians? Kender-halflings? All of this is cakewalk. 

Blaming Kender for being a jerk is like blaming the Chaotic Neutral alignment for...well, being a jerk.  

And we can stop barking up the "orders of magic = classes" tree. Why would they need to limit it based on class? Why not just keep it purely alignment based? Warlocks can be LG just as easily as paladins can in 4e. Any "arcane power source" could count for it. Why not have black robed enemies be able to call on the powers of a Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, and Swordmage?


----------



## rowport (Jun 12, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




To me, the best news about Rouse being on this thread is knowing for sure he sees the vast majority of posters saying they prefer Dark Sun over Dragonlance for the next setting.

Disclaimer: I love Dark Sun, and loathe Dragonlance.


----------



## rowport (Jun 12, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> If I was to boil down the kender to a single word, that would be "curiosity." ...




I think that word would be "annoying."


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 12, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.
> 
> Does that clear things up?




Hmmmm...

Greyh*a*wk
Myst*a*r*a*
Planesc*a*pe
Dr*a*gonl*a*nce
Spellj*a*mmer
D*a*rk Sun
R*a*venloft
Birthright

I can officially say the new setting is NOT Birthright!


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 12, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> I hope none of my comments have been misconstrued as anti-4e or anti-WotC.  If so, then I apologize if I have inadvertently given that impression.
> 
> Like you, I like 3.5e, but I like 4e even more.  I am also a fan of WotC.  Nothing against them.  I've enjoyed the 4e products quite a bit.
> 
> ...



My conversation with you has been nothing if not pleasant. Significantly, you're stating a good point without putting down WotC or 4E, and that makes all the difference. I'm happy to accept that MWP did/does a good job or even a great job; it's just the implication that WotC isn't capable of doing a good job that annoys me. You haven't made that implication.



			
				ki11erDM said:
			
		

> Find the joy of the ignore feature.  Really makes threads like these a lot better.



It's tempting! But I'm always afraid that I'll miss something hilariously, infuriatingly stupid. I want to believe you that it's better that way, but I need to be convinced.



			
				rowport said:
			
		

> To me, the best news about Rouse being on this thread is knowing for sure he sees the vast majority of posters saying they prefer Dark Sun over Dragonlance for the next setting.
> 
> Disclaimer: I love Dark Sun, and loathe Dragonlance.



Normally I'd be right on the same page as you here, but in the spirit of fairness to folks like Dragonhelm, I'm ready to accept that Dragonlance might actually be something cool that I just haven't seen from the best angle yet.

That said, I suspect it's too late in the game for WotC to change their mind about which setting to publish next. I imagine that by now, whatever it is is well into the design and development process. (Conceptualizing an entire setting to a new edition takes a fair bit of work, I believe, and companies don't succeed by starting their development late.)


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 12, 2009)

It pains me to say this as I would much rather see Dark Sun, but with the anniversary for Dragonlance and all of the other bits that people mentioned in this thread, I'd be surprised if it wasn't Dragonlance.


----------



## deadsmurf (Jun 12, 2009)

My thoughts are this - Dark Sun is almost definitely the setting for next year.  But this year is Dragonlance's anniversary so they will do something special for it - a One-off setting book at "double" length (400ish pages) It will be like the Campaign Guides in previous editions, with both player and DM stuff it in.
This goes against the 'one setting per year' rule, but it's a special year!
Instead of a setting, they may just be re-doing the Chronicles era adventures as a huge hardback too.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 12, 2009)

This thread exploded out of nowhere!

I have a hunch that draconians are going to be incorporated into core DL in some fashion, not as a precursor to a DL campaign product but because they're iconic in their own way and well, why not?

I believe Dragonlance would work just fine in 4E for the simple reason that it's not terribly far away from core D&D at this point, with only a handful of setting-specific issues that most people won't be overly concerned by and which a setting-specific product would handily deal with.

And while I would give my left gnomish apparatus to work on a 4E Dragonlance, I also think WotC has a fairly good grasp on its intellectual property's marketability and underlying aspects that anything they produce with Dragonlance content will be with an eye toward quality and progressive design.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 12, 2009)

deadsmurf said:


> My thoughts are this - Dark Sun is almost definitely the setting for next year.  But this year is Dragonlance's anniversary so they will do something special for it - a One-off setting book at "double" length (400ish pages) It will be like the Campaign Guides in previous editions, with both player and DM stuff it in.
> This goes against the 'one setting per year' rule, but it's a special year!
> Instead of a setting, they may just be re-doing the Chronicles era adventures as a huge hardback too.



Honestly, this seems quite unlikely in the current economy. Books that heavy are expensive to make and sell, which means fewer people will buy it, which means they'll sell fewer copies. A publisher of WotC's size can't afford to publish books that people won't buy, AFAIK.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 12, 2009)

deadsmurf said:


> My thoughts are this - Dark Sun is almost definitely the setting for next year.  But this year is Dragonlance's anniversary so they will do something special for it - a One-off setting book at "double" length (400ish pages) It will be like the Campaign Guides in previous editions, with both player and DM stuff it in.
> This goes against the 'one setting per year' rule, but it's a special year!
> Instead of a setting, they may just be re-doing the Chronicles era adventures as a huge hardback too.




Who knows?

Maybe they'll do some one-off "double length" (400ish pages) books for some of the less popular settings (past saleswise), released at a rate of two or three per year?

After awhile, how many more "martial power X" books can and will they release?  (Or for that matter:  arcane, divine, primal, psionic, elemental, shadow, etc ... "power" books).

I imagine WotC will look back through their catalog of 3E/3.5E supplemental books, for other stuff to "strip mine" into new 4E books.  Another source would be to steal some ideas for new books, from what some 4E 3pp publishers have released already.

Looking at the 3E/3.5E supplemental books catalog, stuff which possibly looks easy and/or viable to "strip mine" into possible new 4E books:

- faiths and pantheons, deities and demigods, etc ...
- epic level handbook, power of Faerun, etc ... (remade to beyond epic)
- book of vile darkness / book of exalted deeds
(champions of ruin / champions of valor)
- races (ie. races of stone, races of destiny, etc ...)
- multiple monster manuals, fiend folio, fiendish codex, etc ...
- libris mortis, lords of madness, drow of the underdark, etc ...
- more draconomicon books, dragon magic, etc ...
- unearthed arcana
- more manual of the planes, planar handbooks, etc ...
- environments:  frostburn, sandstorm, stormwrack, etc ...
- evil (ie. exemplars of evil, elder evils, lords of darkness, etc ...)
- ghostwalk
- heroes of battle, heroes of horror
- stronghold builder's guide
- magic (ie. tome of magic, magic of incarnum, etc ...)
- historical (ie. lost empires of Faerun)

No idea if they will publish a new 4E series of "complete" books.  Though perhaps the 4E "power" books are functionally serving the same purpose that the "complete" books did for 3.5E.

Towards the end of 4E's shelf life, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Rules Compendium" book being released eventually.  I don't think a 4E version of the "Magic Item Compendium" will be done, considering the Adventurer's Vault books are more or less serving the same purpose.  No idea about a "Weapons of Legacy" book.

If persuaded, maybe they'll even go back to churning out 4E versions of all those Forgotten Realms and Ebberon books (ie. shifted by 100 years for the case of FR).


----------



## ggroy (Jun 12, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Honestly, this seems quite unlikely in the current economy. Books that heavy are expensive to make and sell, which means fewer people will buy it, which means they'll sell fewer copies. A publisher of WotC's size can't afford to publish books that people won't buy, AFAIK.




During the time period from mid-late 2004 to the announcement of 4E in 2007, there was around an average of two WotC books released per month for 3.5E D&D.  In the previous time period from 2000 to early-mid 2004, there was around an average of one WotC book released per month for D&D.

At times I wonder whether the increased rate of WotC books released during mid-late 2004 to Aug 2007, was reflective of the "surging economy" at the time due to the housing bubble (in hindsight).  Gamers with steady high paychecks were willing to buy all kinds of books?

Today with many more people out of work, many are less likely to buy new stuff and/or are at least more discriminating in their purchases.

Hopefully the better 3pp's will survive today's economic doldrums.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 12, 2009)

Still it would be nice to see a few familiar names from the 3.5 era into any DL work in 4E. Would that be possible or even likely? Not asking if there is any deal done since there are obvious NDAs involved but if they have Ed Greenwood write part of the new FR I don't see why the same would not happen for an eventual 4E DL be it in 2010 or later.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 12, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> This thread exploded out of nowhere!
> 
> I have a hunch that draconians are going to be incorporated into core DL in some fashion, not as a precursor to a DL campaign product but because they're iconic in their own way and well, why not?
> 
> ...




I was waiting to see if you would respond in this thread. 

To myself I said:

- If Cam responds in this thread it will be Dark Sun

And although I would prefer to run something in Dark Sun - something I've wanted to do since the 2e era - I am interested in what WotC would do with DL. 

In fact I think if it is DS or DL I'll be stoked.


----------



## DarkMagician (Jun 12, 2009)

Maybe it is a new setting, one never done before...


----------



## Belorin (Jun 12, 2009)

ggroy said:
			
		

> Looking at the 3E/3.5E supplemental books catalog, stuff which possibly looks easy and/or viable to "strip mine" into possible new 4E books:



- faiths and pantheons, deities and demigods, etc ... *This might see print  as a collection of previously published setting pantheons, i.e., Deities and Demigods 1/2/3...*
- epic level handbook, power of Faerun, etc ... (remade to beyond epic) *This will probably be DDi material.*
- book of vile darkness / book of exalted deeds *With the de-emphasis of alignment this type of book may get covered in future DMGs*
(champions of ruin / champions of valor) *Same as above*
- races (ie. races of stone, races of destiny, etc ...) T*his will be more DDi material, Ecology of..., etc.*
- multiple monster manuals, fiend folio, fiendish codex, etc ... *Already being done, MM1/2/3 and DDi articles.*
- libris mortis, lords of madness, drow of the underdark, etc ... *Already have Open Grave and there is an Underdark book due out...*
- more draconomicon books, dragon magic, etc ... *In the works*
- unearthed arcana *future DMG & PHBs*
- more manual of the planes, planar handbooks, etc ... *In the works*
- environments:  frostburn, sandstorm, stormwrack, etc ... *Future DMGs*
- evil (ie. exemplars of evil, elder evils, lords of darkness, etc ...) *MMs and DDi articles*
- ghostwalk *Rules for something like this may get covered in the DMG*
- heroes of battle, heroes of horror *Same here*
- stronghold builder's guide *future DMG, hopefully!*
- magic (ie. tome of magic, magic of incarnum, etc ...) *DDi, Power books*
- historical (ie. lost empires of Faerun) *DDi articles*

4E has really been reorganized to prevent alot of spurious splatbooks, you'll get multiple DMGs, PHBs and MMs; the various power books plus the planes books, draconomicons and probably yearly complilations of related DDi material, Fey, Giants, etc.

Bel


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 12, 2009)

ggroy said:


> - ghostwalk




You know, this raises a good point.  Nobody has mentioned Ghostwalk as a possibility.  It has an "a".


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 12, 2009)

I heard from an entirely unreliable source that the new setting will be Krynn. The newest revelation will be that Krynn is actually a Hollow World and the interior is a harsh desert realm with a Dark Sun floating at its center.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 12, 2009)

Krynn has no "A"'s

Neither does "Oerth".

It's Athas.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 12, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Krynn has no "A"'s
> 
> Neither does "Oerth".
> 
> It's Athas.




Krynn's setting is Dr*a*gonl*a*nce, duh!

And I don't know why you threw in Oerth. [whisper]Hollow World is Myst*a*r*a*.[/whisper]

And unless your playing the "straight-man" to my joke, lighten up, it's Friday!


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 12, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Krynn has no "A"'s




*A*ns*a*lon does!


----------



## jsaving (Jun 12, 2009)

Nice to see (some) people finally breaking away from the consensus that next year's setting will be Dark Sun.  Athas is a great setting that deserves to make its 4e debut, but it just doesn't fit the clues we've been given so far from the designers that the new setting:

a) will commemorate an anniversary 
b) was very popular in its day
c) will tug at the heart-strings of longtime gamers  

Athas was never that popular with the broader gaming community and doesn't have a significant anniversary coming up, so unless one thinks WotC has become a serial fibber regarding the 2010 setting, we need to look elsewhere.  Also remember that WotC recently saw fit to can the designer most responsible for the current Dark Sun setting, which further reinforces the idea that Athas will breathe for a year or two longer before making the jump to 4e.

Dragonlance, though, fits the available clues quite well...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2009)

jsaving said:


> Nice to see (some) people finally breaking away from the consensus that next year's setting will be Dark Sun.  Athas is a great setting that deserves to make its 4e debut, but it just doesn't fit the clues we've been given so far from the designers that the new setting:
> 
> a) will commemorate an anniversary
> b) was very popular in its day
> ...




Not that I doubt you, but where did these clues come from?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 12, 2009)

jsaving said:


> a) will commemorate an anniversary
> b) was very popular in its day
> c) will tug at the heart-strings of longtime gamers




a) Next year is the 35th anniversary of Supplement II: Blackmoor.
b) Not sure how popular it was in its day, but being one of very few supplements available I'm sure it was.
c) What would tug at the heart-strings of long time gamers more that an homage to a recently departed original designer?

And Blackmoor has an A in it.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 12, 2009)

Belorin said:


> 4E has really been reorganized to prevent alot of spurious splatbooks, you'll get multiple DMGs, PHBs and MMs; the various power books plus the planes books, draconomicons and probably yearly complilations of related DDi material, Fey, Giants, etc.




I wonder why WotC decided to go this route.

Some guesses would be:

- don't want another fallout/backlash like the release of the 3.5E core books
- too many splatbooks sold poorly and/or didn't even sell out their first printings
- they foresaw the economy falling into the toilet as far back as 2007 or early 2008


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 12, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> You know, this raises a good point.  Nobody has mentioned Ghostwalk as a possibility.  It has an "a".




...You know, I never read Ghostwalk.  And I don't know of anyone else who did.  Was it any good?


----------



## ggroy (Jun 12, 2009)

From the perspective of possible future 4E "Power" books, which setting will provide a large quantity of new classes such that it would be worthwhile to produce something like an "arcane power 2", "divine power 2", "primal power 2", etc ...  This is considering a "martial power 2" is already in the pipeline for a Feb 2010 release.  Eberron has the artificer class, which wasn't covered in the first "arcane power" book.

Could Dragonlance or Dark Sun produce some new distinct arcane or divine classes, for an "arcane power 2" or "divine power 2"?  (Or for that matter other possible past TSR settings).


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 12, 2009)

jsaving said:


> a) will commemorate an anniversary
> b) was very popular in its day
> c) will tug at the heart-strings of longtime gamers





Holy Frak !!  this is true?




ggroy said:


> Could Dragonlance or Dark Sun produce some new distinct arcane or divine classes, for an "arcane power 2" or "divine power 2"?  (Or for that matter other possible past TSR settings).




Yeah.. both have it a lot!! From the arcane and divine Orders of Dragonlance to Preservers/Defilers plus Templars plus Poison Bards of D-Sun..


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 12, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...You know, I never read Ghostwalk.  And I don't know of anyone else who did.  Was it any good?




For a one-shot it was pretty decent. Nice map which is very important for settings imo, an interesting city, a rather exciting subsystem. Certainly had promise, and could be great with the current 3 books system though I don't know if they could keep the special rules (not that it would be hard rulewise, it just sounds like a lot of text).


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 12, 2009)

In the Manual of the Planes, Krynn AND Athas are both mentioned, and a "spelljammer" is a magic item, a ship and frequenlty mentioned in it...

Hey, if it has cannibal halflings or gnome-chewing giant space hamseters, I'll be happy!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 12, 2009)

hmmm.

Ghostwalk?

That might explain the revenant in D&Di.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 12, 2009)

IIRC correctly they talked about Ghostwalk, perhaps it was on a podcast?

Anyhow, they said that they would hardly revisit Ghostwalk as a setting, possibly as part of some sort of sourcebook.

I think Mearls said it had been a neat idea, bit not really enough for a campaign, and that perhaps the city of Manifest would do better as an interesting place to visit.

And I don't think it sold well - it was not long since I saw it in bargain bins.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 12, 2009)

Truthfully, I could see Ghostwalk being used as a sample city in a future DMG.


----------



## Verys Arkon (Jun 12, 2009)

Here are some things Chris Perkins has said about campaign settings here...



> > Originally Posted by Seeker95
> > Next year seems to be Dark Sun, if hints and asides are any indication.
> >
> > Recycling old material, they can release:
> ...




Some interesting insights, and I think it helps us eliminate more than one old campaign setting.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 12, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> a) Next year is the 35th anniversary of Supplement II: Blackmoor.
> b) Not sure how popular it was in its day, but being one of very few supplements available I'm sure it was.
> c) What would tug at the heart-strings of long time gamers more that an homage to a recently departed original designer?
> 
> And Blackmoor has an A in it.




a) Next year is also the 35th anniversary of Supplement I: Greyhawk and the 30th anniversary of the World of Greyhawk boxed set.
b) We all know how popular the Greyhawk setting is/was.
c) Tugging heart-strings for the same reasons plus the nostalgia of the setting itself for us old grognards.

And Greyhawk has an A in it.


----------



## jamorea (Jun 12, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> a) Next year is also the 35th anniversary of Supplement I: Greyhawk and the 30th anniversary of the World of Greyhawk boxed set.
> b) We all know how popular the Greyhawk setting is/was.
> c) Tugging heart-strings for the same reasons plus the nostalgia of the setting itself for us old grognards.
> 
> And Greyhawk has an A in it.




Based on James Wyatt's comments in the 4E One Year Later Tome Show podcast I doubt it's Greyhawk.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 12, 2009)

jsaving said:


> Nice to see (some) people finally breaking away from the consensus that next year's setting will be Dark Sun.  Athas is a great setting that deserves to make its 4e debut, but it just doesn't fit the clues we've been given so far from the designers that the new setting:
> 
> a) will commemorate an anniversary
> b) was very popular in its day
> c) will tug at the heart-strings of longtime gamers




  Hmm...sources? I'm no longer a DDI subscriber, so if this has shown up in Ampersand, I missed it.

  Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk and Ravenloft were all popular in their day, and all have vocal followings, so the anniversary clue would be key. 2010 is the 25th Anniversary of the Dragonlance *novels*, and the 20th anniversary of the Ravenloft campaign setting. Dark Sun, meanwhile, celebrates its 20th Anniversary in 2011.

  If they want to leverage anniversaries, I'd say it'll be DL in 2010, and DS in 2011. The one thing that throws this into question in my mind is that DL is still 'on shelves' in many places, with a lot of used bookstores and game stores stocking 3.5E material from Sovereign Press/MWP. Dark Sun, meanwhile, has been hard to find since the 3E changeover, and Ravenloft's 3E material was cancelled earlier and not as widely distributed as SP/MWP's DL stuff. It might be a wise idea for WotC to wait a little longer on DL so that the older, competing material moves out of the retail stream--especially given one other fact.

DL is the War of the Lance first and foremost. It's the story everyone knows, it's the period that many (if not most) of the novels tie back into, and all three major iterations of the DL game line (1E/2E, SAGA/2E, 3.5E) have ended or nearly ended their runs with a revisitation of the original adventures. Given that, I would not be at all surprised for WotC to produce a trilogy of supermodules for 4E telling that story . . . but then you run into the problem that MWP did the same thing for 3.5E only two or three years back. Another reason to hold off a few years longer.

Plus, I have to wonder if the movie (which was not very good) hurt the brand identity somewhat.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 12, 2009)

Suffice to say, evidence suggests that both Dragonlance and Dark Sun are on the shortlist for publication.

Given the comment about needing to "dust off" properties every once in a while, to me that suggests that Greyhawk isn't a priority right now; it didn't get a lot of direct support during 3E, but it did see a lot of indirect support. OTOH, Dark Sun is looking pretty "dusty". Dragonlance is a little bit less so, on account of licensing, but it's also a strong candidate, especially when you consider that comment about "non-active settings being revitalized in other arenas" where he specifically mentions Hollywood. (There was a Dragonlance movie released in 2007.) It's not direct evidence in favour of DL, but I'd bet good money that that's exactly what Perkins was thinking about when he mentioned it -- if nothing else, it means that Dragonlance is definitely on the minds of the folks at WotC.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 12, 2009)

Judging from the prices on eBay Dark Sun looks good. 


(Not all of the modules, but the setting.)


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 12, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> 2010 is the 25th Anniversary of the Dragonlance *novels*,




2009 is the anniversary for both games and novels.  _DL1 Dragons of Despair _was released in March 1984, and _Dragons of Autumn Twilight_ was released in November 1984.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 13, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> 2009 is the anniversary for both games and novels.  _DL1 Dragons of Despair _was released in March 1984, and _Dragons of Autumn Twilight_ was released in November 1984.




   I stand corrected--I thought DoAT was January 1985.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 13, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> 2009 is the anniversary for both games and novels.  _DL1 Dragons of Despair _was released in March 1984, and _Dragons of Autumn Twilight_ was released in November 1984.






Matthew L. Martin said:


> I stand corrected--I thought DoAT was January 1985.




well (atleast in my mind) that shoots that clue out of the water...relasing DL on it's 25th anniversary sound like a good idea...announceing it for a year later...not so much


----------



## CelticMutt (Jun 13, 2009)

Verys Arkon said:


> Here are some things Chris Perkins has said about campaign settings here...
> 
> 
> 
> Some interesting insights, and I think it helps us eliminate more than one old campaign setting.



I still think Birthright can work well as an entire updated setting.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jun 13, 2009)

> I still think Birthright can work well as an entire updated setting.




  Possibly. I always thought Birthright was a cool _idea_ for a setting, but most of the details left me cold. As a complete do-over, it could work.

  I also think the coupling the setting with good, easy to use realm management/mass battle rules could encourage people to pick up the setting just for the extra goodies.



> We're ruling out nothing.
> 
> However, whether we treat a past setting as a full-blown campaign setting or simply absorb its best concepts or qualities into a core D&D book would be a topic of debate. Taking Birthright as an example, we could put the mechanics for leading armies, building strongholds, and ruling kingdoms into a future DMG. I'm not saying we would do that, but if we did, would we need a Birthright campaign setting reboot? Hmm.




  Ok, now  I've seen the quote you're talking about. It's a good point, but I think you can argue that Birthright can provide you with useful content and background to use the sort of rule expansion that he is referencing here. I mean, in theory you can take the rules for this stuff from 2nd edition Birthright and apply them to FR, but then you've got to do all the work yourself. 

  With a Birthright setting, you could potentially have (statblocks?) for several nations or settlements that players could try to rule or lead, as well as other setting material geared towards running that sort of campaign. If nothing else, it could serve as a very useful reference book for DM's to pillage or reskin for their own settings. 

  That said, I still think Birthright is pretty far down the list. My guess at this point is:

2010 Dragonlance
2011 Dark Sun
2012 Candyland Extreme.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (Jun 13, 2009)

I love, love, love Birthright, but I have no illusions that it will be re-released for 4E. That's why I'm working on my home brew version. It would be beyond awesome if a future DMG included rules for leading armies, building strongholds, and ruling kingdoms leaving me less work. Having a built in sand box for PCs to try out those new rules in a 4E Birthright setting would be great but it probably wouldn't justify the investment on WotC's part.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 14, 2009)

I think we can discount Spelljammer and Planescape as possibilities.  The fact that they've included Sigil and Jamming hulls and such in 4e books already, and the way that they're not 'campaign settings' in the traditional sense of the term, means they really dont have a place in the way that they're handling 4e.

Or rather, they do have a place: but not as a campaign setting release.  They're content, behind the scenes, regardless of which campaign setting books you're using.  Almost every 4e setting has dwarves, and avengers, and the possibility of getting ahold of a spelljammer vessel or ending up in Sigil.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 14, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> a) Next year is the 35th anniversary of Supplement II: Blackmoor.
> b) Not sure how popular it was in its day, but being one of very few supplements available I'm sure it was.
> c) What would tug at the heart-strings of long time gamers more that an homage to a recently departed original designer?
> 
> And Blackmoor has an A in it.




Codemonkey is publishing Blackmoor I thought? At least Ari claimed he worked on some 4e Blackmoor stuff for them. Or did he perhaps just say that he worked on Blackmoor? Hmm Maybe the Mouse can confirm something?


----------



## Henrix (Jun 14, 2009)

webrunner said:


> I think we can discount Spelljammer and Planescape as possibilities.




There is also the fact that they have stated that both seem to have cost more than they ever made.

That could of course have been due to the rather excessive material, with expensive boxes with lots of material and maps, but still.

I think we'll see some of the interesting bits of Planescape, Spelljammer, Ghostwalk, Birthright, Ravenloft and perhaps Hollow World resurface only as source material suitable for any campaign.

And Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Mystara, and such, just as a place for inspiration - some monsters that haven't been ripped yet. 
And Dragon articles. 
What sets them apart is mostly just fluff - and Wizards currently wants crunchy player's guides. I think those outsell the campaign settings by a lot. I'd estimate at least a couple of times more sales for a PG than a CS. More players than DMs around, and more people that want the crunch for use in other settings.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 14, 2009)

Henrix said:


> There is also the fact that they have stated that both seem to have cost more than they ever made.




As far as I'm aware, that's not true at least for PS. Planescape sold pretty well, and made a profit. However the profit margin for each product sold was less than other lines, primarily because of the larger number of box sets, and they also used a larger variety of inks in the printing process.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 14, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> As far as I'm aware, that's not true at least for PS. Planescape sold pretty well, and made a profit.




I could be wrong, but I recall someone from Wizards mentioning it, a couple of years ago (here, I think). I may misremember, or it might have been that the collected settings didn't make any profit.


----------



## Hawke (Jun 14, 2009)

DarkMagician said:


> Maybe it is a new setting, one never done before...




I thought early on (pre-release of 4E) the schedule was FR, EB, then a new setting for 2010 that was designed for 4E. I know they've changed their mind a lot of times. It also might be part of their gateway toward gaining gamers (remember the timeline was D&D veterans first, then try to hit new guys) with a new setting that can be experienced on its own without an internet or table of veterans making things un-fun* for new players with their decades of knowledge from books and supplements. 

It'd be kind of nice to see a fresh take on things without the board posts of "omg, they're totally breaking _________" and "they aren't changing the fundamental flaws.... I never liked _______ and this doesn't change that. Sorry wotc, you just lost my monies" 


* = I understand this isn't always the case with majority of players, but seriously as someone unfamiliar with Forgotten Realms would you ever ever ever want to DM a group of people who are familiar? Even as a player it could be daunting to come up with a story and character concept only to find it's quite unbelieveable because remember in book X when...


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 14, 2009)

Hawke said:


> I thought early on (pre-release of 4E) the schedule was FR, EB, then a new setting for 2010 that was designed for 4E. I know they've changed their mind a lot of times. It also might be part of their gateway toward gaining gamers (remember the timeline was D&D veterans first, then try to hit new guys) with a new setting that can be experienced on its own without an internet or table of veterans making things un-fun* for new players with their decades of knowledge from books and supplements.
> 
> It'd be kind of nice to see a fresh take on things without the board posts of "omg, they're totally breaking _________" and "they aren't changing the fundamental flaws.... I never liked _______ and this doesn't change that. Sorry wotc, you just lost my monies"
> 
> ...




Do you remember the _"OMG ZBBQ! Dinosaurs & Halflings LOL! Wotc go away ruining it!!!1!!!"_ thread? I reread it not long ago. It happens with EVERY setting. Even the new ones.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 15, 2009)

More grist for the DL next mill

So You Think You Can DRAGONLANCE


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 15, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> More grist for the DL next mill
> 
> So You Think You Can DRAGONLANCE



I think that just may nail it.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 15, 2009)

Hjorimir said:


> I think that just may nail it.



 At this point, if they announce anything different, the greatest fans of the Dragonlance setting are going to be pissed and out for blood.  You just don't invite people to a show where you are going to announce the new D&D setting and turn around and kick them in the Jimmy.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 15, 2009)

Well if it is, it will be the first 4e setting I'll buy. It isn't my first choice (Al'Qadim, oh how I miss thee), but Dragonlance has always had a special place in my heart.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jun 15, 2009)

So it is 90% likely that the setting is Dragonlance, huh? Count me amongst the disappointed. I was really hoping it would be Planescape or Dark Sun. Of course, an entirely new setting would've been even better.

I will stick to my Eberron, I guess.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 15, 2009)

As I am not eligible to enter anyway I may send in an entry that just says Raistlin 500 times


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 15, 2009)

[sblock=break down] no...no   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

why...not the tinkering gnomes, and the theif kenders, and the gully dwarf, and the kendar lier that destroyes games....NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO   

please be a night mane please be a nightmare  [/sblock]

Ok, now that I got that out of my system... I just hope they update a few things. I hope/pray/beg the delvs...please don't keep kendars as is. Please make them a feat for haflings. or something. 

[sblock=just so you know]I like tasselhoff, in the stories I read he was great. I even laughed when in the beggining of time of the twins someone stoped him and made him empty his bag...he was never a major detmaint, nor was he a spoiled brat. HOWEVER I have never seen a kender played that way. [/sblock]

infact change the feat thing...lets start a letter righting campaing Kenders NPC Only...all the fun and frolic none of the PVP...


----------



## rounser (Jun 15, 2009)

DL has been through the retcon reboot wringer more times than perhaps any other setting.  It's like Lazurus with a triple bypass, so applying the paddles one more time will hardly matter.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 15, 2009)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> At this point, if they announce anything different, the greatest fans of the Dragonlance setting are going to be pissed and out for blood.  You just don't invite people to a show where you are going to announce the new D&D setting and turn around and kick them in the Jimmy.




I was thinking it would be Ravenloft. It fits all the clues and has much better niche protection.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 15, 2009)

Hjorimir said:


> Well if it is, it will be the first 4e setting I'll buy. It isn't my first choice (Al'Qadim, oh how I miss thee), but Dragonlance has always had a special place in my heart.




Hmm... I'm thinking that I'll probably keep getting Player's Guides as long as I'm gainfully employed or otherwise not broke (and WotC keeps up with the Player's Guide/Campaign Guide setup for settings), but assuming Dragonlance is the next setting, I think Eberron is going to stay the only Campaign Guide I pick up for a while.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 15, 2009)

Ravenloft, however, like Planescape and Spelljammer, has been killed and had its stuff taken for the core assumptions of the game. Domains of dread exist in the Shadowfell; they don't need a whole setting of their own, it seems.

Also, I strongly doubt that the "So you think you can Dragonlance" promotion is about anything more than the anniversary (a year late though it may be) and the novels' relaunch. I'd be surprised if Dragonlance works in the context of Fourth Edition's de-emphasised alignments, non-Good metallic dragons, _et cetera_.



Dragonhelm said:


> Or compare that to Star Wars, with the Old Republic in one generation, the Rebellion Era in another, and the New Republic/New Jedi Order in a third.  130 years after that is the Legacy Era.  Sounds like they have galaxy-shattering events every generation.



The Old Republic era is something more like 150 generations before the Dark Times/Rebellion era. There's a difference between the "Republic era" that exists during the time of the prequel films, before Palpatine becomes Emperor, and the "Old Republic era" of the _Knights of the Old Republic_ comics and CRPGs and the _Star Wars: The Old Republic_ MMO that's coming up in 2010 or 2011.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jun 15, 2009)

Well if it is Dragonlance then I am just gonna steal whatever crunch is good from DDI and that is about it.


----------



## Derren (Jun 15, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> I'd be surprised if Dragonlance works in the context of Fourth Edition's de-emphasised alignments, non-Good metallic dragons, _et cetera_.




WotC will make it work one way or the other.
Thats why I am not too thrilled if WotC decides to 4Eize Dragonlance. The results will likely be worse than what they did to FR.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Hmm... I'm thinking that I'll probably keep getting Player's Guides as long as I'm gainfully employed or otherwise not broke (and WotC keeps up with the Player's Guide/Campaign Guide setup for settings), but assuming Dragonlance is the next setting, I think Eberron is going to stay the only Campaign Guide I pick up for a while.




I probably won't even get the Player's Guide, unless the new class is really good. If it's just a handful of nice feats, well, that's what I have DDI for.



Derren said:


> WotC will make it work one way or the other.
> Thats why I am not too thrilled if WotC decides to 4Eize Dragonlance. The results will likely be worse than what they did to FR.




It cannot possibly be worse than what Dragonlance did to itself over the last 10 years or so. The setting is an utter hash at this point.


----------



## Orius (Jun 15, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk and Ravenloft were all popular in their day, and all have vocal followings, so the anniversary clue would be key. 2010 is the 25th Anniversary of the Dragonlance *novels*, and the 20th anniversary of the Ravenloft campaign setting. Dark Sun, meanwhile, celebrates its 20th Anniversary in 2011.
> 
> If they want to leverage anniversaries, I'd say it'll be DL in 2010, and DS in 2011.




This seems likely to me.  DL is popular enough to be one of the next setting books to be released.  The only problem is that the setting was very much tied to the 1e rules originally.  This wasn't a huge problem in 2e, and I have no idea how it worked in 3e.  With 4e I'm not sure because of the drop of Vancian magic, which was pretty heavily tied in with the Orders of High Sorcery.  They could still work it out.  

I'd imagine Dark Sun is probably under consideration.  It has a somewhat strong fan base, and it's usually counted among the good 2e settings.  The only problem is trying to shoehorn core 4e classes and races into the DS setting; they tried that with the 3.5 stuff in Dragon, and it didn't go over well at all.  If they're just doing limited support for setting with a player's guide, a DM guide and a module, and just continuing support through DDI, there shouldn't be any reason for them to not cut some of the core stuff out.  It's better to present that stuff as options than say, "You have to use everything from this book if you want to use anything".

Greyhawk is harder to tell.  It's the most classic setting, but a lot of the fans haven't always been happy with new material, and that goes back to 2e.  If the people who are most interested in Greyhawk aren't interested in playing it with the 4e rules, then it may not be worth it for WotC to try to revive it again.  Then there's also how much in the world needs to be adapted to accommodate some of 4e's changes which also will not sit well with some of the older fans.  Doing Greyhawk with be a Catch-22 for WotC no matter how they approach it, I feel.

Birthright's an iffy case.  From what Perkin said, WotC may not fully revise the entire setting, but use the rules for the domains and stuff in a wat that any DM can apply it to any setting.  IMO, this is really what TSR should have done with Birthright back in 1995 instead of creating yet another setting to clog up 2e, and if an example setting was needed, they could have grafted it onto the Realms or something.  But, OTOH Birthright's setting had some really good ideas, it was at least more interesting than a vanilla kitchen sink setting.

Mystara I think is unlikely.  As Perkins said, there's no hook.  There's really nothing in Mystara that distinguishes it from Greyhawk or the Realms, and D&D doesn't need three generic setting that cover nearly the exact same ground.  Yes, it's home to the  B/X modules, the Savage Coast and Hollow World, and there's a good deal of stuff there upon which DM can build a campaign, but then again, Greyhawk and the Realms do just about the same thing.  As a whole, the three settings differ only in the details.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 15, 2009)

Regarding the "So you think you can Dragonlance", I think it reeks of The_Rouse. Keep in mind that he reads these (and other) boards and I wouldn't put it past him to have some fun providing us clues but leading us in the wrong direction if possible.


----------



## The_Fan (Jun 15, 2009)

I can see it now. Wizards holds a contest to see who is the biggest Dragonlance fan. The lucky winners are taken to Gencon Indy, which is celebrating the 20th anniversary of Dragonlance, and holding a panel discussion with the creators of Dragonlance. Wizards will also use the opportunity to announce it's long awaited setting for 2010...


...DARK SUN!








Personally I was hoping for Dark Sun, but it's not looking likely at this point.


----------



## rounser (Jun 15, 2009)

It could be Darklance.  Or maybe, Dragon Sun.  Two birds, one stone.

"Grim-n-gritty, post-apocalyptic enslaved desert world collides with high fantasy heroics world brimming with wacky comic relief sidekick races.  Hilarity ensues."


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 15, 2009)

rounser said:


> It could be Darklance.  Or maybe, Dragon Sun.  Two birds, one stone.
> 
> "Grim-n-gritty, post-apocalyptic enslaved desert world collides with high fantasy heroics world brimming with wacky comic relief sidekick races.  Hilarity ensues."



Over on the WotC boards someone posted an amusing idea of introducing Dark Sun as a form of post-apocalyptic Dragonlance, based on the idea that Dragonlance had one world-shattering event too many and the gods gave up on it, leading into a slide towards destruction. I think something like that would actually be able to get me into playing in the Dragonlance setting. 

Seriously though, the only part of Dragonlance that I ever found interesting was the original novel trilogy, and even then I think it worked better as a single story than as a game setting. _If_ WotC wants to release that setting for 4E, I think they really need to wind the clock back to those books, or simply reboot it entirely to create a situation resembling the war of the lance that allows more PC involvement. I mean, just like Eberron works because it has a central theme built on the threat of a resurgence of the Last War, Dragonlance could work by being a setting built around letting the PCs participate in the epic struggle between armies of good and evil in the War of the Lance. It is just about the only thing the setting has going for it.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 15, 2009)

Uh, Dragonlance. Not my choice. 

Oh, well, perhaps thay make something interesting for the PG. The setting is bland enough so that it could be used in about any other generic fantasy setting.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 15, 2009)

I have to agree...Dragonlance reads better than it plays..


----------



## avin (Jun 15, 2009)

So, the mini hint was right, huh? I told you 

Not a DL fan here but I do hope they at least give it a better graphic treatment. FR3E rocks but FR4E is visually horrible.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Over on the WotC boards someone posted an amusing idea of introducing Dark Sun as a form of post-apocalyptic Dragonlance, based on the idea that Dragonlance had one world-shattering event too many and the gods gave up on it, leading into a slide towards destruction. I think something like that would actually be able to get me into playing in the Dragonlance setting.




Ha, I posited something like that once. Of course, that was back in the 2E days before Dragonlance went nuts with the apocalyptic remodelings, so my theory was that Dark Sun was the final outcome of the "Raistlin kills all the gods" timeline.



TwinBahamut said:


> _If_ WotC wants to release that setting for 4E, I think they really need to wind the clock back to those books, or simply reboot it entirely to create a situation resembling the war of the lance that allows more PC involvement.




I think the latter is the more probable outcome. Turning the clock back would enable them to re-release the original module series, of course... but how do you run a module series when 80% of the gaming community has already read the plot in novel form?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I have to agree...Dragonlance reads better than it plays..





I've seen this sentiment over and over on this thread, and I have to ask if this is based on the original modules or not.  For the critics who say it's a better novel world, have you given the 3.5 version a shot?  Is it fear of messing with continuity that's holding some back?

I've not found it hard to play at all.  In fact, I find it more enjoyable to play than most worlds.  Now I understand that DL isn't for everyone, but why is this such a strong sentiment?  

Just a curiosity on my part.


----------



## rounser (Jun 15, 2009)

> Just a curiosity on my part.



The thinking seems to be thus:

1) The setting's all about the heroes and events in the novels, therefore my PCs and what they do will be irrelevant, and eventually overwhelmed by canon events taking place in those novels.
2) The original Dragonlance modules are a railroad, and are basically playing out the novels (nevermind that the modules predate the novels).  See point 1.

I don't agree entirely, but that seems to be the concensus.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

Orius said:


> I'd imagine Dark Sun is probably under consideration.  It has a somewhat strong fan base, and it's usually counted among the good 2e settings.  The only problem is trying to shoehorn core 4e classes and races into the DS setting; they tried that with the 3.5 stuff in Dragon, and it didn't go over well at all.  If they're just doing limited support for setting with a player's guide, a DM guide and a module, and just continuing support through DDI, there shouldn't be any reason for them to not cut some of the core stuff out.  It's better to present that stuff as options than say, "You have to use everything from this book if you want to use anything".




In many ways, I think 4E is a better fit for Dark Sun than 3E or even 2E were. Consider that 4E has:


Stripped alignment mechanics from the game, so there are no longer classes that are required to be exemplars of virtue
Changed the low-level "create food and drink"-type spells to rituals with a component cost, so they can't sustain a party indefinitely
Generally reduced the ability of spellcasters to negate environmental hazards
Made 1st-level characters tough and durable (the original Dark Sun boxed set started everyone at level 3 to achieve this)
Introduced a PC race, the dragonborn, which are dead ringers for the Dark Sun dray
Reduced magic item dependence, and made it possible to reduce it even further with simple adjustments
Created the epic destiny system, which is a perfect fit for dragon (and avangion, if we must have avangions) metamorphosis
There really is very little in the 4E core books that would not fit quite well in Dark Sun - unless you adopt a purist, "If it wasn't in the original boxed set it is anathema and must be burned at the stake*!" attitude. Which is sadly common, but those people won't be happy with _any_ re-release of an old setting.

I admit that tieflings and devas would require a little creativity. Still, tieflings could be explained as the result of years of exposure to defiling magic, and devas with their reincarnation shtick could work quite well as lonely idealists who remember the world as it was and keep trying to turn back the clock; they already have a kind of doomed nobility thing going on, which is the only kind of nobility Dark Sun's got.

Frankly, Dark Sun does not need to change all that much to fit the new D&D, because the new D&D has already changed to fit Dark Sun.

[SIZE=-2]*Of course, I am only speaking of 4E stuff here. Stuff from the novels and the revised boxed set _is_ anathema and _should_ be burned at the stake. Except dragon metamorphosis, that bit was cool, once you took out all the garbage about Rajaat.[/SIZE]


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 15, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Of course, I am only speaking of 4E stuff here. Stuff from the novels and the revised boxed set _is_ anathema and _should_ be burned at the stake. Except dragon metamorphosis, that bit was cool, once you took out all the garbage about Rajaat.




lol, agreed 100 and 1 %!! 
Having established a wonderously baroque, different setting of tyranny, brutality and survival, which was awesome and completley un-like all the "Tolkein-esque" stuff, TSR turned around and made Tyr a _DEMOCRACY_ WTH?!...
All to fit the novels which were decidedly iffy (nice flavour bakcgorund etc, but ruined the mystery and the Cleansing war precluded DM's use of many creatures etc) , omg...that was so lame, so I've always stuck with the 1st boxed set.

Same problem with Draognlance: shoe horning, driving the setting to novels, then again, Dragonlance modules were just spin offs, and frankly suck sweaty orc armpits! 
(I had three of the "Dragons of Somehting or Other" modules, fyi)
At least the novels were good (some of them anyway)

So I _do _hope they kick the fans in the jimmy  and bring out Dark Sun, or Spelljammer or Planescape, anything but Dragonlance or Greyhawk, 'cause both of them don't really offer anything very different or "fun".
Dragonlance, what's different: twoers of high sorcery/split magic users, and Raisitlin's funky eyes  Oh and tinker gonmes, and too many folk seem to have forgtten D&D is about FUN and have thus retconned gnomes into being _boring_. Gnomes, to me, are most fun when juggling nitroglycerine and Fireballs, k? 

Another issue that is important to me, is that the old settings had very defined art/styles, which was _vital _for their "feel".


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Another issue that is important to me, is that the old settings had very defined art/styles, which was _vital _for their "feel".




Well, there's a clue we could look for. If we hear that someone from WotC has been talking to Brom or Larry Elmore, we'll know which setting to expect. 

(Actually, Brom would only narrow it down to Dark Sun or Planescape, since he established the visual styles of both. And Larry Elmore is all over the place in old-school D&D. But if it's between Dark Sun and Dragonlance, there you are.)


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 15, 2009)

rounser said:


> The thinking seems to be thus:
> 
> 1) The setting's all about the heroes and events in the novels, therefore my PCs and what they do will be irrelevant, and eventually overwhelmed by canon events taking place in those novels.
> 2) The original Dragonlance modules are a railroad, and are basically playing out the novels (nevermind that the modules predate the novels).  See point 1.
> ...



I think you're spot on with the general consensus, but I don't agree with it. The same thing can be said about Star Wars and SWSE has been a great success and can be quite fun to play.

Assuming DL is the next setting, I'm hoping they move the timeline forward to a point where the events of the Chronicles and Twins are distant memory (maybe even legend) and create a sandbox for new heroes. Maybe the novels alaready did this, but I never read anything past the first two series (which I loved).


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 15, 2009)

*filling out his Dragonlance form*
After reading more of this tread I still don’t think it is DL. It is too easy… The Rouse has you all hoodwinked. (If it is it damn well better be a reboot)

edit: And Cam's post below this one is an perfect example of why DL is not the next setting.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 15, 2009)

I see a great deal of "I don't know what they did with DL in 3.5" or "I never read past the first novels" or "I have no idea what DL is other than what people tell me."

MWP's Dragonlance products can still be found, often cheap (since they're 3.5) and there's no shortage of access to Dragonlance novels in bookstores and online stores. Margaret and Tracy are completing the three-part Lost Chronicles series this year in time for the 25th Anniversary (which is 2009, believe it or not) and these "fill in the gaps" between the original trilogy. There are new and exciting novels set in the current era, after the War of Souls, and there's a "visit interesting periods of Dragonlance history" series called the Anvil of Time which I kicked off with The Sellsword.

Not to mention the outstanding and exhaustive Dragonlance fansite at Dragonlance Nexus: Unofficial Dragonlance Lexicon, News, Fan Art, Gaming Rules, and Product Information or the high-traffic forums at Dragonlance Forums.com - Community Message Boards of the Dragonlance Nexus.

If you want to explore the world more, or have any interest in it, or simply don't know what's been going on for the past quarter century, you could do much worse than check these things out.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 15, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> (Actually, Brom would only narrow it down to Dark Sun or Planescape, since he established the visual styles of both.




Brom may have cone some work you remember for PS, but visual style was all Tony DiTerlizzi.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 15, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> I've seen this sentiment over and over on this thread, and I have to ask if this is based on the original modules or not.  For the critics who say it's a better novel world, have you given the 3.5 version a shot?  Is it fear of messing with continuity that's holding some back?




I tried 3.5...I had the same problems as when I played in 2e...great world lots of fluff, fun ideas... kenders being played as kleptos, and when I dislike them in game I get called out by EVERY NPC becuse they are sooo cute...followed by tinkerer gnomes that make every other scean into jokes...

     however we did use the mystic class for our other games



> I've not found it hard to play at all.  In fact, I find it more enjoyable to play than most worlds.



have you played ebberon...or Birthright if you go back enough...



> Now I understand that DL isn't for everyone, but why is this such a strong sentiment?



 again I like the world...just not for playing in...





rounser said:


> 1) The setting's all about the heroes and events in the novels, therefore my PCs and what they do will be irrelevant, and eventually overwhelmed by canon events taking place in those novels.



  this seamed like a much smaller problem becuse unlike the realms there were only a few heros stated...so you could adventure int he aftermath




> 2) The original Dragonlance modules are a railroad, and are basically playing out the novels (nevermind that the modules predate the novels).



 yes, I remember thinking I had no choice at the age of 13 playing these....and trust me all our games were on rails when we look back...but these still stood out...



> I don't agree entirely, but that seems to be the concensus.




can we aleast get a concensus that the small races were destoryed by lack of an overall auther...(What I mean is in the novels the auther controls when something funny or endearing, or strange happens, so it never really messes witht he story...in a game ther are PCs and GMs and no one of them has that control)


----------



## Jester David (Jun 15, 2009)

Looks like Dragonlance is a lock for the 2010 setting. 
I had my money on Dark Sun as well, but it's not a total shocker. Dragonlance does have some solid support and a novel line that still sells well.


Dragonlance might be really, really tricky through. I can't see it doing well at all!

Mostly because _which_ Dragonlance do you do? 
Do you do the classic Dragonlance of the War of the Lance and the original novels? But that does tend to lock the future into what's already happened.
Or do you do the SAGA Dragonlance of the Dragon Overlords? 
Or do you do the modern War of the Souls Dragonlance? But it's completely different from the classic novels new fans will likely start with?

Picking the classic seems the best way for new fans but alienates those who've been following the world for years. Picking the current incarnation or skipping ahead alienates the fans of the classic world and will cause cries of "FR nuking" from those unfamiliar with the recent changes. 

There's also the big issue of MWP content (Margaret Weis Press, formerly Sovereign press). 
They managed the 3e Dragonlance line with some of the best fluff the line has ever see (great, great books), but fairly terrible crunch. Average 3PP stuff. 
Does the brand new official books acknowledge what has happened in that line (such as the death of the last Dragon Overlord)? Can they use the fluff from those books for shared continuity? Will the writers from that line have input in the new books or will it be generic WotC staff?

I envision the latter with Wizbro using in-house writers, which might annoy fans of the MWP line and its writers (who are quite active and popular in that community). I expect lots of new contradictions and breaks from canon.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 15, 2009)

Jester Canuck said:


> Looks like Dragonlance is a lock for the 2010 setting.




Did I miss something?


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 15, 2009)

Caliber said:


> Did I miss something?




It's called an opinion I think.

As I mentioned earlier, I think we are being played...


----------



## Maggan (Jun 15, 2009)

Henrix said:


> I could be wrong, but I recall someone from Wizards mentioning it, a couple of years ago (here, I think). I may misremember, or it might have been that the collected settings didn't make any profit.




You might be thinking of this quote from Ryan Dancey:



> We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape




Taken from here:

Ryan Dancey on the Acquisition of TSR

/M


----------



## C_M2008 (Jun 15, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I think we are being played...




Most certainly. I wouldn't count out the possibility that it'll come out of left field and be something totally unexpected.

I think the dragon lance anniversary is being played up to see if there is enough interest to warrant a CS in the next few years or not.


----------



## Ktulu (Jun 15, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I think we are being played...





While that's possible, I don't think so.  It's not like they have to be extra sneaky because the game might get leaked or something.  They're just waiting on the big official announcement.  They're peppering the site with occasional nods to the system and, while it could be a different one, that doesn't make sense from what they said.

They've said that hints will be coming.  There are clear links to DragonLance being the next setting, yet no clear hints to any other setting (an "a" doesn't really help).

The best way to drum up talk for something is to let the rumors leak and deny until you announce.  Right now, everyone's looking for any possible hint, talking, at length, about what a 4e verson of setting X would be (most specifically DL), and debating nonstop.  What would WotC gain by saying, "Fooled you!  It's actually Red Steel!"??


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It's called an opinion I think.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I think we are being played...




I want to agree, but it feels too much like clinging to desperate hope in the face of mounting evidence. If it were purely the Rouse's decision, it might be such a trick, but with all due respect, I can't believe he'd be calling the shots on this one. This is _the_ big announcement for WotC in 2009, and it makes no sense to build a lot of buzz around Dragonlance and then turn around and announce Dark Sun.

All the signs point to Dragonlance. It's the smart, safe move from a business standpoint, and the hints are coming thick and fast. Count me among those who consider it a lock. Ah well.

Here's what I'd like to see: They set 4E Dragonlance at the start of (or a few years prior to) Chronicles, then release a new sequence of modules based on the original series, with emphasis on allowing the PCs to chart the course of the War of the Lance. The continuity established in the novels can stay - no need to de-canonize anything - but players and DMs are not tied to it and are free to take things where they like.

I think this is a reasonable hope, based primarily on the fact that Raistlin Majere is statted out in the Character Builder as a heroic-level Red Robe rather than an epic-level Black Robe. Although it would require some very clever adventure design to keep the story fresh and new, so players who've read the novels don't anticipate everything.


----------



## Henrix (Jun 15, 2009)

Maggan said:


> You might be thinking of this quote from Ryan Dancey:




No, no, it was much more recent, and specific. 
I'd hasard that it was less than a year ago, I'm fairly certain it was in a discussion about 4e and campaign worlds - could be here, or perhaps in one of the podcasts (one of the Noonan-Mearls Q&As?).


----------



## danir (Jun 15, 2009)

Well, 
Another option which no-one mentioned is that they will publish Dark-Sun or another setting for 2010.
And, 
release a new (stand-alone) Dragonlance adventure (similar to against the giants?) to celebrate the 25th years of the original DL adventures. In the same vain of expedition to... series from 3.5, which were good.

This will both allow them to get a new / revised setting out, without the weight that DL has (lots of fractured storylines, great 3.5 product line) - and lets them assess the interest for DL in 4e & address the 25th year celebration

Just another guess


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

danir said:


> Well,
> Another option which no-one mentioned is that they will publish Dark-Sun or another setting for 2010.
> And,
> release a new (stand-alone) Dragonlance adventure (similar to against the giants?) to celebrate the 25th years of the original DL adventures. In the same vain of expedition to... series from 3.5, which were good.
> ...




Ugh. Damn you. I had just resigned myself to no Dark Sun in 2010, and started considering the possible bright sides of a Dragonlance setting, and then you had to go and shine down a ray of brutal crimson hope.

You, sir, are a cruel, cruel person.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 15, 2009)

Jester Canuck said:


> Looks like Dragonlance is a lock for the 2010 setting.




A lock?  A contender, maybe, but a lock is a bit much.  If it was a lock, WotC would be announcing a major new trilogy.  Beyond one anthology in January, we're not seeing any Dragonlance novels for next year.  In fact, every Dragonlance trilogy that was unfinished wraps up by the end of this year.

I still say that the re-release of the Prism Pentad is no coincidence.  Nor should we discount that psionics will be in PHB3.  If I was going to do Dark Sun, I would make certain that it happened right as psionics was released.  Plus, Dark Sun fits the points of light theme quite well and it stands out from various "vanilla" settings.  

As much as I love Dragonlance, I maintain that Dark Sun is more likely.



> Mostly because _which_ Dragonlance do you do?
> Do you do the classic Dragonlance of the War of the Lance and the original novels? But that does tend to lock the future into what's already happened.
> Or do you do the SAGA Dragonlance of the Dragon Overlords?
> Or do you do the modern War of the Souls Dragonlance? But it's completely different from the classic novels new fans will likely start with?





Dragonlance is kind of like Star Wars in that it is a setting of settings.  There are multiple eras to play in, all of which with their own draw.  MWP saw this, and so they focused primarily on the Age of Mortals and the War of the Lance.  Eventually, they would have tackled the Chaos War as well.



> Does the brand new official books acknowledge what has happened in that line (such as the death of the last Dragon Overlord)? Can they use the fluff from those books for shared continuity? Will the writers from that line have input in the new books or will it be generic WotC staff?
> 
> I envision the latter with Wizbro using in-house writers, which might annoy fans of the MWP line and its writers (who are quite active and popular in that community). I expect lots of new contradictions and breaks from canon.




Which is why I think they'll let Dragonlance have a wee rest.  Let some time go on, give some separation, then fans will be even more hungry for a return.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 15, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> A lock?  A contender, maybe, but a lock is a bit much.  If it was a lock, WotC would be announcing a major new trilogy.  Beyond one anthology in January, we're not seeing any Dragonlance novels for next year.  In fact, every Dragonlance trilogy that was unfinished wraps up by the end of this year.




Of course when FR was being worked up for 4e, WotC went to a policy of not releasing any more novels set prior to the 4e time-jump. Perhaps not having any announced novels for DL for next year is only a prelude to a future announcement of novels set in some 4e DL after either a time-jump or a massive retcon/reboot of core DL setting elements or history. I could see it.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> As much as I love Dragonlance, I maintain that Dark Sun is more likely.




Heh. Maybe we're both just trying to manage our expectations down.

I will say this much with confidence: Whatever the 2010 setting may or may not be, the buildup of buzz around Dragonlance is building up to _something_. You don't stir up the pot like that and then not serve the stew.

I'll go further and predict that a Dragonlance adventure will be announced, perhaps even released, as part of the 25th anniversary celebration at Gen Con. Maybe it'll be a big single adventure (on the scale of _Red Hand of Doom_), maybe it'll be a series or even a whole adventure path. Or maybe it will be simply _Dragons of Despair_* updated to 4E, with an option to issue more if it proves popular. There may or may not be a Dragonlance setting to go along with it, but an adventure there will be.

If the 2010 setting is in fact Dragonlance, I predict a totally new adventure, either set in a later era or (in the case of a reset) running in parallel with the events of the original Chronicles. If the 2010 setting is not Dragonlance, then I think the balance of probability favors a re-issuing of the original modules, with the Heroes of the Lance statted up for 4E.

What say you?

[SIZE=-2]*For those not familiar with it, _Dragons of Despair_ was the very first module in the original Dragonlance adventure series, covering the journey of the Companions to Xak Tsaroth and the recovery of the Disks of Mishakal.[/SIZE]


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 15, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Well, there's a clue we could look for. If we hear that someone from WotC has been talking to Brom or Larry Elmore, we'll know which setting to expect.
> 
> (Actually, Brom would only narrow it down to Dark Sun or Planescape, since he established the visual styles of both. And Larry Elmore is all over the place in old-school D&D. But if it's between Dark Sun and Dragonlance, there you are.)




Well, Brom rules, but...they have used others before who did great DS art, Baxa did a lot, but this guy did work for Dragon mag and it looks great to me 

Dark Sun Witch detail by ~namesjames on deviantART


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Well, Brom rules, but...they have used others before who did great DS art, Baxa did a lot, but this guy did work for Dragon mag and it looks great to me
> 
> Dark Sun Witch detail by ~namesjames on deviantART




Ooh, nice! There's a clear Brom influence, but he's got a good style of his own going too.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 16, 2009)

The only way I'd buy a Dragonlance setting book was if it was a complete and total reboot from the very start of the setting when it was still cool and awesome. In other words, nothing but the six Chronicles and Legends books and the 15 or so modules.

They could do it by sending Raistlin's cousin's brother's sister back in time in a revenge arc after Fistandantilus failed to stop Nuitari from being destroyed by a magical explosion that threatens to engulf all of Krynn. Then, 25 years later, when Fistandantilus reappears through the wormhole...


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 16, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Of course when FR was being worked up for 4e, WotC went to a policy of not releasing any more novels set prior to the 4e time-jump. Perhaps not having any announced novels for DL for next year is only a prelude to a future announcement of novels set in some 4e DL after either a time-jump or a massive retcon/reboot of core DL setting elements or history. I could see it.




  DL may have a time-jump or a partial reboot, but a total reboot simply Will Not Happen, IMO. _Chronicles_ and _Legends_ are just too big for that. I strongly suspect that even DoSF and the War of Souls are too much of a perennial for WotC to risk killing the cash-cow with a limited reboot.

  There was one time in the setting's history I expected a partial reboot--during the War of Souls--but that was due to a confluence of factors no longer present. DL is what it is; I expect that any future DL line will be either 'back to the basics' or will pick up where the MWP line and the novels left off. Given that the novels are being put on pause--the novels which have been _much_ more successful than the game line ever was--I still don't think it's likely to be the 2010 release. 

  As for the 'hype,' so far it appears to be 
  1) one draconian miniature--and draconians are one of the elements (along with Lord Soth  ) that have traction outside of DL.
  2) Raistlin in the Character Builder--and Raistlin's been an iconic figure even when DL was dead or a non-D&D line.
  3) The "Ultimate Dragonlance Fan" contest--which is arguably just as much about the latest Last Weis & Hickman Dragonlance Novel and the 25th Anniversary. (And if Shivam "Talinthas" Bhaat [EDIT: or Weldon Chen or another of the 'Old Guard'] doesn't win that contest, I will be surprised.  )


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 16, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I probably won't even get the Player's Guide, unless the new class is really good. If it's just a handful of nice feats, well, that's what I have DDI for.




Indeed.  If it is the 2010 campaign setting, I'll have to thank WotC for sparing me the need to buy the book.

Brad


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2009)

avin said:


> A DDMspoiler user has found some miniatures from the next set. One of them seems to be an Aurak.
> 
> Is it a sign of Dragonlance being the next setting?



Nope. There were also several DDM minis for the Dragonlance setting without there being a campaign setting (from WotC) for it in 3E.

I'm pretty sure the next official WotC setting is going to be Darksun. And that's a good thing, too.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Jun 16, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Nope. There were also several DDM minis for the Dragonlance setting without there being a campaign setting (from WotC) for it in 3E.



You mean other than this one?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 16, 2009)

Chris Knapp said:


> You mean other than this one?




  True--but the only reason that came about (after being announced as a 3E line and then unannounced) was because Sovereign Press (now MWP) was willing to pay for the license and provide support for it. Given that 'setting support' is now a dirty word to WotC, it may be evidence that they're willing to do another one-shot . . . but I don't think even the 3.5E version did that well by WotC standards. (The 3.5 material did well enough for SP/MWP, as I understand, but well enough for a small company is a far cry from well enough for WotC.)


----------



## jsaving (Jun 16, 2009)

Jester Canuck said:


> Dragonlance might be really, really tricky through. I can't see it doing well at all! Mostly because _which_ Dragonlance do you do?...
> I expect lots of new contradictions and breaks from canon.



Most of the discussion thus far has focused on where in the canonical timeline the 4e setting will be placed and which aspects of canon it will most emphasize.  The more important question in my view is whether canon can or even should be preserved if the setting is to regain the prominence it once enjoyed.

Getting at the answer raises some very tough issues about the extent to which designers, WotC, and even Weis and Hickman themselves have contributed to the setting's descent into relative anonymity.  Has the evolution of the setting after the original trilogy made Ansalon a more interesting place in which to adventure, or has it eroded the qualities that originally made Dragonlance so attractive to the gaming public?  Are the radically different eras in which one can now adventure a selling point for the setting, as some in this thread have claimed, or a liability?  Has the rapid accumulation of "Krynnlore" enriched the setting without driving away prospective newcomers, or has it merely complicated the setting and discouraged people from trying it out?  

I think there's something to be said for both points of view, but what I expect to see is a "Star Trek" style reimagining of Dragonlance that preserves the essential feel of Chronicles and perhaps Legends while erasing or at least blurring most aspects of canon.  Such a revamp would surely provoke a visceral reaction from those who are strongly vested in past versions of the setting as well as those who think the MWP material should remain inviolate, just as anti-movie Trekkies/ers recoiled at violations of previously established canon and saw the various eras in which one could adventure (and their accompanying "Treklore") as enrichments to the setting rather than barriers to entry.  But the bottom line is that the Star Trek revamp successfully reinvigorated the cash cow, and the hope will be that a well-executed revamp could do the same for Ansalon.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2009)

How about this:

So You Think You Can Dragonlance


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 16, 2009)

jsaving said:


> I think there's something to be said for both points of view, but what I expect to see is a "Star Trek" style reimagining of Dragonlance that preserves the essential feel of Chronicles and perhaps Legends while erasing or at least blurring most aspects of canon.  Such a revamp would surely provoke a visceral reaction from those who are strongly vested in past versions of the setting as well as those who think the MWP material should remain inviolate, just as anti-movie Trekkies/ers recoiled at violations of previously established canon and saw the various eras in which one could adventure (and their accompanying "Treklore") as enrichments to the setting rather than barriers to entry.  But the bottom line is that the Star Trek revamp successfully reinvigorated the cash cow, and the hope will be that a well-executed revamp could do the same for Ansalon.




First of all, it remains to be seen whether Star Trek has in fact been reinvigorated, beyond the immediate revenue from the movie. When they launch a successful new Star Trek series, one which substantially outperforms Enterprise and Voyager, then I'll agree there has been reinvigoration going on. Until then, it is very much up in the air whether the reboot was a good idea or not. (I think it was, but my opinions may not be representative.)

Second, to be very blunt, the Star Trek fan community is vastly bigger than the Dragonlance fan community, and Star Trek has a much higher profile in the public consciousness. It also had a big-budget movie to pull in fresh blood. These things give Star Trek a lot more leeway to risk fracturing its existing fan base.

Third, because an RPG setting does not require a new story, Dragonlance has an option which Star Trek didn't: Put the new setting at a particular point in the franchise's history (my money would be on the start of Chronicles, the start of Legends, or the end of Legends), reissue the original series in a 25th Anniversary Edition, and quietly disregard everything that came after. There's no need to alienate a chunk of the fanbase with an "official" reboot. Those who like the post-Chaos War material can regard it as the "official" future of the setting. Those who don't can pretend it never happened. Everybody's happy.

For new novels, they can just keep doing what they've been doing more and more of - filling in the gaps in the setting's past. I'm sure there are at least twenty-nine minutes of Raistlin's life that haven't yet been made into a novel.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 16, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Given that 'setting support' is now a dirty word to WotC




I don't think this is true. I do know that WotC fully intends to support its settings beyond the core 3 products by publishing online content thru DDI. Whether or not this works or is sufficient to count as support may be up to the individual, but I do credit them for trying.

Also, I think if WotC had a proportionate amount of success with DL as MWP/SP did with it, in terms of distribution reach and branding penetration, they'd be happy enough.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 16, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> I don't think this is true. I do know that WotC fully intends to support its settings beyond the core 3 products by publishing online content thru DDI. Whether or not this works or is sufficient to count as support may be up to the individual, but I do credit them for trying.
> 
> Also, I think if WotC had a proportionate amount of success with DL as MWP/SP did with it, in terms of distribution reach and branding penetration, they'd be happy enough.
> 
> ...




The DDI approach makes sense to me. Electronic content can be published very, very cheaply compared to wood pulp. WotC can hire freelancers to produce setting material as consumer demand warrants, while their core team works on stuff with a more universal appeal.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 16, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The DDI approach makes sense to me. Electronic content can be published very, very cheaply compared to wood pulp. WotC can hire freelancers to produce setting material as consumer demand warrants, while their core team works on stuff with a more universal appeal.



I like this scheme as well.  Plus, with Dragon and Dungeon Annuals, we are able to get the material in print eventually.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jun 16, 2009)

Another vote for liking the DDI approach. One thing I have been thinking about, no matter what it is setting wise (let us consider if it is just Dragonlance and Dark Sun in the running). I wonder if the sale numbers for these two will effect future campaigns in that, if say... Dark Sun does better will less traditional settings get a larger boost and vice-versa. It will be interesting to see how much "voting with your wallet" may happen.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 17, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Well, there's a clue we could look for. If we hear that someone from WotC has been talking to Brom or Larry Elmore, we'll know which setting to expect.
> 
> (Actually, Brom would only narrow it down to Dark Sun or Planescape, since he established the visual styles of both. And Larry Elmore is all over the place in old-school D&D. But if it's between Dark Sun and Dragonlance, there you are.)




Actually the visual art style of Planescape was established by Tony DiTerlizzi


----------



## davethegame (Jun 17, 2009)

It was just pointed out on Twitter that on page 152 of the Eberron Player's Guide under Stormreach it mentions half-giants and thri-kreen. 

The plot thickens!


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 17, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Actually the visual art style of Planescape was established by Tony DiTerlizzi




This has been pointed out to me. My mistake. I'm not sure why I thought Brom did the cover art for Planescape.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 17, 2009)

davethegame said:


> It was just pointed out on Twitter that on page 152 of the Eberron Player's Guide under Stormreach it mentions half-giants and thri-kreen.
> 
> The plot thickens!




Thri-kreen have been in a few campaign worlds.  Half-giants in 3.5 were no longer a Dark Sun-specific race.  So all this tells me is that there might be support for psionics in the Eberron Player's Guide.  I could hope too that these races are in PHB3, but I'm not holding my breath quite yet.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jun 17, 2009)

I am fairly positive that if PHB3 will feature psionics (and don't forget the Monk's power source), it will also have thri-kreen and half-giants, for better or for worse.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jun 17, 2009)

Blizzardb said:


> I am fairly positive that if PHB3 will feature psionics (and don't forget the Monk's power source), it will also have thri-kreen and half-giants, for better or for worse.



I really hope it has Thri-Keens and mostly Psionic races in general (I need my Elan!). I hope the Half-Giants options also talk/show the more animal type ones that were in Dark Sun (if memory serves me right).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 17, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Electronic content can be published very, very cheaply compared to wood pulp.




While I don't want to shoot down the idea of support through DDI (which I think is a good one), this is a misconception that fuels, among other things, a lot of the debate on PDF pricing.

Production costs are a relatively small factor when it comes to publishing on WotC's scale. Development costs far outweigh the cost of the paper and printing; the savings in going electronic are not insignificant, but are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. (Compared to smaller companies, WotC's large print runs drive production costs down; their high production values drive R&D, art, and design costs up. Even in small companies, anyone paying their designers a living wage spends more on development than printing.)

Electronic publishing does reduce the time to market and eliminates a lot of logistical headaches, which makes it well suited for riskier endeavors such as supporting campaign settings. (And that alone is a bit of a cost saver.)

But ultimately, while there are a lot of real advantages to electronic publishing, saving on print costs is pretty minor.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Jun 17, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I really hope it has Thri-Keens and mostly Psionic races in general (I need my Elan!). I hope the Half-Giants options also talk/show the more animal type ones that were in Dark Sun (if memory serves me right).




Only true giants came in the 'beast-head' varieties.  Half-Giants looked about the same as in the Expanded Psionic Handbook, except that in Dark Sun they were large.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 17, 2009)

Now how will the half-giants do the rotating alignment thing in 4e?

*DUCKS!*


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 18, 2009)

So what is it? The coincidence # 29?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 18, 2009)

DarthMouth said:


> So what is it? The coincidence # 29?




is this someone from dragonlance, or just a peice of art???


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> is this someone from dragonlance, or just a peice of art???




It _could_ be just coincidence, but that looks a whole lot like a Dragon Highlord's armor.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 18, 2009)

That's Ariakas.  

It's not a coincidence.  Indeed, WotC is celebrating 25 years of Dragonlance.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 18, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> That's Ariakas.
> 
> It's not a coincidence. Indeed, WotC is celebrating 25 years of Dragonlance.



 Does this mean we have to go back to arguing about whether or not that bastard is a wizard or a cleric?

...evidence mounting...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> That's Ariakas.
> 
> It's not a coincidence.  Indeed, WotC is celebrating 25 years of Dragonlance.




Heh. I notice the Ariakas in the picture is left-handed, but the mini is right-handed. (Not that I don't think it's the same character - it obviously is, just look at the sword hilt - but apparently the sculptor didn't pay attention to which hand the sword was in.)



CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Does this mean we have to go back to arguing about whether or not that bastard is a wizard or a cleric?
> 
> ...evidence mounting...




I thought it was canonical that he was a wizard (presumably with some kind of special exemption from Takhisis on the usual rules about wizards wearing armor).

...Although, now that I think about it, Tanis simply assumes he's a wizard based on the magical barrier around him; Tanis not being a wizard himself, he could have made a mistake. Raistlin's intervention allows Tanis to win, and Raistlin later mentions Ariakas as the "one man who could have bested [him]," which both suggest wizard, but again, neither is definitive. Huh.

Okay, yeah, I see where the arguments get started. I'd say the writers definitely intended him as a wizard when he was first introduced, but perhaps they later retconned it over the armor question?


----------



## DarthMouth (Jun 18, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> That's Ariakas.
> 
> It's not a coincidence.  Indeed, WotC is celebrating 25 years of Dragonlance.




Except, as I mentioned before, the NEW miniature line of the Wizards are an accessory of 4ed ...​


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 18, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Heh. I notice the Ariakas in the picture is left-handed, but the mini is right-handed. (Not that I don't think it's the same character - it obviously is, just look at the sword hilt - but apparently the sculptor didn't pay attention to which hand the sword was in.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Actually, in the modules, which were released first, Ariakas was a cleric.  The reason for the switch in the novels was because we already had a warrior-cleric Dragon Highlord, Verminaard, so they made Ariakas into a warrior-wizard (cooler IMO).


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2009)

DarthMouth said:


> Except, as I mentioned before, the NEW miniature line of the Wizards are an accessory of 4ed ...​




As I said earlier, I think we can count on _something_ Dragonlance being released for 4E at Gen Con. The question is whether it will be just a Dragonlance adventure or mini-setting, or whether they'll announce Dragonlance as the Official Setting for 2010.



CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Actually, in the modules, which were released first, Ariakas was a cleric. The reason for the switch in the novels was because we already had a warrior-cleric Dragon Highlord, Verminaard, so they made Ariakas into a warrior-wizard (cooler IMO).




Gotcha.

I also like him better as a wizard.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 18, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I thought it was canonical that he was a wizard (presumably with some kind of special exemption from Takhisis on the usual rules about wizards wearing armor).
> 
> ...Although, now that I think about it, Tanis simply assumes he's a wizard based on the magical barrier around him; Tanis not being a wizard himself, he could have made a mistake. Raistlin's intervention allows Tanis to win, and Raistlin later mentions Ariakas as the "one man who could have bested [him]," which both suggest wizard, but again, neither is definitive. Huh.




  There is a definitive statement in _Dragons of Spring Dawning_ that he's a wizard who earned the Black Robes (Book 2, Chapter 2, IIRC), but that's a change from his writeup in the modules, which make him a cleric. W&H have stated that they made the change to avoid making him too much like Verminaard.

  So, if you go by the original modules, he's a cleric; if you go by Chronicles, he's a wizard. Later material has tended to go with either one or the other; the _Emperor of Ansalon_ novel and the 15th Anniversary supermodule went with cleric, while the stuff by Margaret Weis and MWP went with wizard. (I think the 3.5E supermodules had him as a proto-Thorn Knight to get around the 'wizard with sword' bit.)

  And while the art has been used for Ariakas, I think it was originally the cover of the _Knight of the Sword_ or _Knight of the Rose_ novel . . .


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> There is a definitive statement in _Dragons of Spring Dawning_ that he's a wizard who earned the Black Robes (Book 2, Chapter 2, IIRC), but that's a change from his writeup in the modules, which make him a cleric. W&H have stated that they made the change to avoid making him too much like Verminaard.
> 
> So, if you go by the original modules, he's a cleric; if you go by Chronicles, he's a wizard. Later material has tended to go with either one or the other; the _Emperor of Ansalon_ novel and the 15th Anniversary supermodule went with cleric, while the stuff by Margaret Weis and MWP went with wizard. (I think the 3.5E supermodules had him as a proto-Thorn Knight to get around the 'wizard with sword' bit.)
> 
> And while the art has been used for Ariakas, I think it was originally the cover of the _Knight of the Sword_ or _Knight of the Rose_ novel . . .




Clearly he's a mystic theurge.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 18, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Clearly he's a mystic theurge.




  Something like that was proposed online by a few fans to try and reconcile the matter. 

  Personally, I favor the explanation that the modules are Krynn-1, the novels are Krynn-2, and later material tends to be one or the other, or some other branch of the River of Time. (I always preferred my own Krynn-M or Krynn-3.  )


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 18, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Clearly he's a mystic theurge.



 Nope, he is a Paladin-Warlock.  That way he fits both versions.


----------



## ferratus (Jun 18, 2009)

Ariakas could be a swordmage, a warlock/warlord hybrid, or a Cleric with a Wizard multiclass feat.  

Knights of the Thorn are Warlocks?  Swordmages?  Dragon Sorcerers?  Each could be equally correct interpretations.

Another reason that 4e Dragonlance (if there is such a thing) should restart the canon and build from the ground up to be a 4e setting.


----------



## avin (Jun 18, 2009)

Some people are saying this could be Ariakas turned into a PHH mini:












https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20090618a

I have no doubt. It's DL.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 18, 2009)

avin said:


> Some people are saying this could be Ariakas turned into a PHH mini:
> 
> https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20090618a
> 
> I have no doubt. It's DL.




  Oh, so this has been defined as a 'Human Male Paladin'? Might not be anything more than a cool-looking piece of art they used for inspiration, then, sort of like the "Free League Ranger" or a similar piece from 3.5E that bore a striking resemblance to Tanis Half-Elven. 

  I still think DL has too much baggage, too many hurdles to overcome for the 4E conversion (how does one make True Healing a province of the gods in a game of leader roles and rituals?), hasn't done as well as WotC would want in previous incarnations, and is caught between the Scylla of making it attractive to a mass 4E audience and the Charybdis of holding on to the novel fans. I may very well be wrong, though.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 18, 2009)

Or it's a case of re-using art for inspiration, like the Tanis-but-not-Tanis mini.

As for Ariakas, he's a former Black Robe wizard who eschewed gaining arcane power from the moons and instead gained it directly from Takhisis. He was the prototype for the Thorn Knights; his son Ariakan founded the Knights of Takhisis and incorporated arcanists into the orders in recognition of his father's own achievements.

How you'd build that in 4E is up to the reader, obviously, but I'm very much in favor of warlock with some means of acquiring armor proficiency.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 18, 2009)

What Cam said.  

As for the mini having a sword in the wrong hand, that could be artist's discretion or the image might be reversed.  Minor quibble.

Of course, when I wrote the Legend of Huma comic adaptation, I had to work very hard to make certain the artists knew that Huma was left-handed!


----------



## avin (Jun 18, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> Or it's a case of re-using art for inspiration, like the Tanis-but-not-Tanis mini.




Re-using art could be, but Feywild was cancelled and the set split between a set for monsters, with few minis that Feywild would have, and a player set.

Minis that would be used for the "monster" setting appeared on the player set, and repaints were made to fill the gap.

This is clearly Ariaka turned into "paladin" to fill the gap of the second PH series, that still has lots of repaints.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 18, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> Or it's a case of re-using art for inspiration, like the Tanis-but-not-Tanis mini.



 Yeah, but even then, I could have sworn they made reference to everyone's favorite half-elf on their website when the picture of the Free League Ranger came out.

As to the Ariakas-but-not-Ariakas mini, we get no such reference made.  But can you really blame them?  "Oh yeah, your character looks exactly like the one of the most evil people to exist in one of the CSs".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 18, 2009)

...Not to derail things, but does anyone else find that mini to look hilariously cartoonish, and not in a good way?


----------



## Orius (Jun 19, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Heh. I notice the Ariakas in the picture is left-handed, but the mini is right-handed. (Not that I don't think it's the same character - it obviously is, just look at the sword hilt - but apparently the sculptor didn't pay attention to which hand the sword was in.)




Maybe he's pulling the Princess Bride schtick here: "I am not left-handed!"


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 19, 2009)

Just a strange idea that occurred to me.

What if Dark Sun is released as an AREA of another campaign world (probably Eberron).

Think about it. Planscape has already been morphed into core 4e with Sigil. Ravenloft is part of core through Domains of Dread. The Underdark was once a Forgotten Realms area, but is now part of core 4e.

So who's to say that Dark Sun wont be released as a suppliment to either core 4e or even as an area of Xen'drik in Eberron? Half-giants and Thri-kreen in Stormwatch... psionics... wide open areas w/ the remenants of ancient empires.

Seriously, Dark Sun really strikes me as a campaign area, not so much as an entire world of its own.

I think Dragonlance is it.... which disapoints me a little b/c I'm not sure if they can make it unique enough from the Realms to compete for my dollars.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 19, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Just a strange idea that occurred to me.
> 
> What if Dark Sun is released as an AREA of another campaign world (probably Eberron).
> 
> ...






...Because Dark Sun has it's own very unique cosmology and set of rules regarding magic that effectively shuts it off from all other planes, both figuretively and literally?  Or really, because *everything about Dark Sun* requires that it be it's own thing and not some part of another world.

I mean...that...you...how would...GHAH!


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 19, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Just a strange idea that occurred to me.
> 
> What if Dark Sun is released as an AREA of another campaign world (probably Eberron).
> 
> ...




I'm not entirely convinced Darksun would work as an "adventure area." It assumes that metal and most other natural resources are incredibly rare if not practically non-existent, and that magic is killing the world around the people who use it. Being able to ride a ship to another part of the world for armor, weapons, and safer magic would trivialize the setting, and possibly compromise whatever setting it was anchored in. Eberron, with industrialized magic (and nearly everything else for that matter), is perhaps the worst setting you could possibly integrate it with.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 19, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Just a strange idea that occurred to me.
> 
> What if Dark Sun is released as an AREA of another campaign world (probably Eberron).
> 
> ...




I think they learned with FR that plunking settings into settings is a bad idea and only leads to problems in the long run.
At least, i hope they did.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 19, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> I'm not entirely convinced Darksun would work as an "adventure area." It assumes that metal and most other natural resources are incredibly rare if not practically non-existent, and that magic is killing the world around the people who use it. Being able to ride a ship to another part of the world for armor, weapons, and safer magic would trivialize the setting, and possibly compromise whatever setting it was anchored in. Eberron, with industrialized magic (and nearly everything else for that matter), is perhaps the worst setting you could possibly integrate it with.




This. It'd be like running a post-nuclear-apocalypse game in which Chicago got nuked, and everyone within 100 miles of Chicago is living a Mad Max lifestyle with battles over food and gasoline and basic necessities, and the rest of the world survived fine and is ticking along just like normal. Any sensible player is going to respond to this scenario with, "Well, we could stay here and struggle valiantly against the gangs and street scum. Or we could haul up stakes, scrape together some gas, and head for Texas. We'll load up on gas and food and guns, come back to Chicago, and blow the hell out of anyone who gets in our way... or, hell, just stay in Texas."

I'm not the sort of fan who thinks Dark Sun must remain forever preserved in amber, unchanged and inviolate. WotC could import eladrin and dragonborn and tieflings, or rearrange the cosmology, without harming the essence of the setting. In fact, I think the cosmology could really use a good kick in the pants. But I can't see how Dark Sun could possibly be imported into a small region of another world and be anything but silly.

(Although it _would_ be possible to make Dark Sun into the desolate future state of another setting.)


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 19, 2009)

Okay, folks, according to the Divine Heroes 2 preview, that isn't Ariakas, but rather a "male human paladin."  So they pulled the old Tanis/Free League Ranger trick on us again.

To quote:



> *Male Human Paladin*
> 
> Experienced Dungeons & Dragons players will have noticed a difference with the paladin when compared to earlier editions. The paladin is no longer restricted to being just Lawful Good but is now the divine crusader for their deity. This paladin strays a bit more toward the neutral or evil side of things. He's a decent choice for a PC that follows the Raven Queen or as a foe for your games. His 6th level utility power is Flare of Divine Vengeance, a daily power that triggers on being hit by the target of the Paladin's divine challenge. It grants a healing surge and a bonus to hit the target until the end of the paladin's next turn.


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 19, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> I'm not entirely convinced Darksun would work as an "adventure area." It assumes that metal and most other natural resources are incredibly rare if not practically non-existent, and that magic is killing the world around the people who use it. Being able to ride a ship to another part of the world for armor, weapons, and safer magic would trivialize the setting, and possibly compromise whatever setting it was anchored in. Eberron, with industrialized magic (and nearly everything else for that matter), is perhaps the worst setting you could possibly integrate it with.




Oh yea of little retcon faith 


bone and stone are what the *locals* use. Since the PCs are super-special, they use their normal weapons. Think mechanically... Dark Sun is going to have a whole new equipment and magic item list? That would invalidate other source books that WotC is making and might throw off the attack/defense/damage numbers.
Life Draining magic? That's a story device that can be limited to the area around it, a la older Anarouch and the life drain spells. It serves as the central conflict of the new adventuring area. Heck, make Endurance checks every Extended Rest.
Industrialized magic hasn't yet civilized Xen'drik... so it wouldn't alter Dark Sun either.
So... it's possible, especially if WotC keeps the idea that all source books are meant to be used in all settings.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 19, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> This. It'd be like running a post-nuclear-apocalypse game in which Chicago got nuked, and everyone within 100 miles of Chicago is living a Mad Max lifestyle with battles over food and gasoline and basic necessities, and the rest of the world survived fine and is ticking along just like normal.




Almost like Bug City from Shadowrun.  Which I suspect you already knew.  

Of course, there were also walls around it keeping the insect spirit infestation in.  Mostly.



> But I can't see how Dark Sun could possibly be imported into a small region of another world and be anything but silly.




It could conceivably be on another continent on the complete other side of the world from the setting's continent.  This might be difficult on worlds like Eberron where the continents and coastlines are known in general.

Hrm, perhaps the Mourning flung the inhabitants of Cyre into an alternate Eberron, coexisting in time with the normal but vibrating at a slightly different frequency, and this new world is a postapocalyptic hellhole like Dark Sun?  Hrm, that could be relatively cool, witih a bit of development.

Brad


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 19, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Oh yea of little retcon faith




Sigworthy!  LOL!


> Life Draining magic? That's a story device that can be limited to the area around it, a la older Anarouch and the life drain spells. It serves as the central conflict of the new adventuring area. Heck, make Endurance checks every Extended Rest.




The basic assumption could be that player characters are always preservers, thereby allowing defilers to be statted up like monsters.  However, this cuts out a cool story element.

What you have to explain, though, is why a huge sun can be seen in Dark Sun and is burning this area of the world to a crisp, while the rest of the world doesn't see that.  Just seems kinda convoluted to me.  



> So... it's possible, especially if WotC keeps the idea that all source books are meant to be used in all settings.




See, now this is a mark against Dark Sun as the setting.  Materials don't just port in and out too easily.  I can see moving some races to other worlds, such as what they did with the half-giant.  I can also see porting the primitive weaponry of Dark Sun to other worlds.  The problem comes with using mainstream D&D materials in Dark Sun.  The setting as a whole has certain restrictions.  Now, Dave Noonan did a pretty good job with Dark Sun in the pages of Dragon, which shows how new races can be ported in, such as what they did with the XPH races.


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 19, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Almost like Bug City from Shadowrun.  Which I suspect you already knew.
> 
> Of course, there were also walls around it keeping the insect spirit infestation in.  Mostly.
> 
> ...




Hmm, interesting idea about an "alternate Cyre". However, the new world map of Eberron shows a vast desert located on western Xen'drik. My Eberron knowledge is limited, but this seems like a rather large area that hasn't been used or detailed.

Even if Dark Sun isn't officially put in Eberron, it could be developed as a "drop in" expansion to any campaign world. If there's an open desert area that already exists in a published campaign world... well, that's just good cross-product design.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Oh yea of little retcon faith



Sounds to me like you want Al-Qadim or another Sandstorm book rather than Darksun. Once you take out the "death spiral" the word goes from apocalyptic to just another sandbox. 



> So... it's possible, especially if WotC keeps the idea that all source books are meant to be used in all settings.




They don't mean all of every book at the same time. It takes much more work to place Thay and Thrane on the same map than it does to have an artificer and a swordmage in the same group. 

Which also brings up another point: You are tying to shove an entire world onto another entire world. Ravenloft and Sigil weren't anywhere near that big to begin with, and even when integrated with the Points-of-Light setting, they are separated from the main world on different planes.


----------



## Hawke (Jun 20, 2009)

Wow... Cyre on a planet they believe the Moruning has happened everywhere else.. they are the sole survivors... echos of destroyed buildings and artifacts slip into existence and you run around trying to figure out what happened, with the assumption that Cyre's leadership may have used a weapon that "worked too well"... or perhaps some ruins elsewhere turn up evidence otherwise. Perhaps in Cyre they determine who really did it and then try to figure out it why backfired and slowly come to a realization that they could get back with the right circumstances and let the world know the Truth.

I do not like Dark Sun as a "drop in." While desert-stuff might work well, the whole idea of a truly godless world where magic works differently is a true pull of the setting that makes it different than some desert cities. If you're going to release Dark Sun as a product, they'd need to keep it to the important "different" roots...if the DM wants to rip pieces into his campaign, go for it! I just want to see it treated differently.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

It would be easier to place Dragonlance in Forgotten Realms to be honest. Both worlds have the same general theme.

All you would have to do is add two moons (not like anyone adventures on the moons anyway), one of which is invisible enough that you could refluff it as Shar. Mechanically, there wouldn't be any real changes to magic, because that is imbalanced. FR already has Gond and an island of tinker gnomes, and magic guilds, and knights for that matter. Transpose halflings into kender, add in gully dwarves, sprinkle with draconians, and Integration has been achieved.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> It would be easier to place Dragonlance in Forgotten Realms to be honest. Both worlds have the same general theme.
> 
> All you would have to do is add two moons (not like anyone adventures on the moons anyway), one of which is invisible enough that you could refluff it as Shar. Mechanically, there wouldn't be any real changes to magic, because that is imbalanced. FR already has Gond and an island of tinker gnomes, and magic guilds, and knights for that matter. Transpose halflings into kender, add in gully dwarves, sprinkle with draconians, and Integration has been achieved.




I'm going to disagree here, as Dragonlance has some pretty specific themes, a limited amount of deities, and a world that has moved to a new place in the 'verse (amongst other things).

What I thought about at one point was merging the Realms and Greyhawk.  At one point, I was thinking separate continents.  Then I got the Hollow World idea and thought Greyhawk could go on the inside.  This would break Spelljammer continuity, but this wouldn't be the first time that's happened.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 20, 2009)

I think people are overestimating the difficulty of importing 4E core material into Dark Sun. Almost any race can be Dark Sun-ified with very little trouble. I mean, look at the races they imported back when the original Dark Sun came out. Delicate forest-loving elves and fat hobbity halflings - can you imagine any races less suited to life on Athas? That didn't stop them from turning elves into long-legged thieves and halflings into cannibals.

Divine classes need an alternative to traditional gods, but again, they faced the same problem in 2E. That's why Dark Sun has elemental powers, sorceror-kings, and spirits of the land. For equipment, simply say that regular equipment is made of bone, wood, stone, or obsidian; metal gear is so rare as to be effectively magical. All bronze equipment is at least +1 and all steel equipment is at least +2. Copper pieces become bits, silver becomes ceramic, and gold becomes copper.



cignus_pfaccari said:


> t could conceivably be on another continent on the complete other side of the world from the setting's continent.  This might be difficult on worlds like Eberron where the continents and coastlines are known in general.




This could work, but then why bother? If the two settings are separated by a giant ocean and have no knowledge of each other, what is gained by putting Dark Sun on the same planet as Eberron? All you're doing is restricting what you can put into Dark Sun, with no benefit.

IMO, this kind of world-melding is best left to the individual DM. If you want your world to be a Dark Sun/Eberron hybrid, go for it. But the designers shouldn't try to shoehorn the rest of us into Eberron.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Hmm, interesting idea about an "alternate Cyre". However, the new world map of Eberron shows a vast desert located on western Xen'drik. My Eberron knowledge is limited, but this seems like a rather large area that hasn't been used or detailed.



The whole continent of Xen'drik is left somewhat undefined - _Secrets of Xen'drik_, rather than describing the continent, presented discrete sites, encounters, and adventure hooks which could be placed virtually anywhere on the continent that had the right population or geography. That vast desert, Menechtarun, was said in Third Edition to be the home of thri-kreen, asherati, and bhuka (the latter two are from _Sandstorm_).

Xen'drik is really not "open" for use in the way you seem to think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 20, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I think people are overestimating the difficulty of importing 4E core material into Dark Sun.



AMEN...preatch it brother...



> Almost any race can be Dark Sun-ified with very little trouble. I mean, look at the races they imported back when the original Dark Sun came out. Delicate forest-loving elves and fat hobbity halflings - can you imagine any races less suited to life on Athas? That didn't stop them from turning elves into long-legged thieves and halflings into cannibals.



 and how many paragraphs would it take to get eather poitn across...I think no more or less then the two settings out used...



> Divine classes need an alternative to traditional gods, but again, they faced the same problem in 2E. That's why Dark Sun has elemental powers, sorceror-kings, and spirits of the land.



 The best part is that it is soooo easy to refluff the entire powersource at once...watch



> All Divine characters aact a little diffrent in this setting (See campaing guid pg XX) becuse there are no gods. When you make a divine character instead of chooseing a good choose a Dragonking, Avengion, or Elemntal lord from the list below.






> For equipment, simply say that regular equipment is made of bone, wood, stone, or obsidian; metal gear is so rare as to be effectively magical. All bronze equipment is at least +1 and all steel equipment is at least +2.



 heck add in a side bar for masterwork armors and it is perfect refluff...


Heck elves already have a +1 to there speed, imaign a feat that gives them the Orc +2 for chargeing and there you go...


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> I'm going to disagree here, as Dragonlance has some pretty specific themes, a limited amount of deities, and a world that has moved to a new place in the 'verse (amongst other things).



 You could plop down the pantheon on an island easily, it's not like FR isn't known to have different subsettings. And if Dragonlance has all ready moved once, well a second time isn't that hard to see. Even FR has been subject to some cosmology manipulation recently.



> What I thought about at one point was merging the Realms and Greyhawk.  At one point, I was thinking separate continents.  Then I got the Hollow World idea and thought Greyhawk could go on the inside.  This would break Spelljammer continuity, but this wouldn't be the first time that's happened.




I thought Hollow World was part of the hook for Mystara?


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> The whole continent of Xen'drik is left somewhat undefined - _Secrets of Xen'drik_, rather than describing the continent, presented discrete sites, encounters, and adventure hooks which could be placed virtually anywhere on the continent that had the right population or geography. That vast desert, Menechtarun, was said in Third Edition to be the home of thri-kreen, asherati, and bhuka (the latter two are from _Sandstorm_).
> 
> Xen'drik is really not "open" for use in the way you seem to think.




Xen'drik is supposed to have a mutable interior geography IIRC. Constantly changing so that maps don't really work.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> You could plop down the pantheon on an island easily, it's not like FR isn't known to have different subsettings. And if Dragonlance has all ready moved once, well a second time isn't that hard to see. Even FR has been subject to some cosmology manipulation recently.



 The entire planet moved, not just one continent.  That is why having Krynn just be part of FR is impossible.  That and, Ansalon(in the southern hemisphere) has a continent on the opposite side of the planet, Taladas(in the northern hemisphere) that was also hit by the Cataclysm(a freaking meteor hit the planet, kinda hard for people in Faerun to miss that).  Where a large portion of Ansalon's landmass sunk into the ocean, a huge volcano formed in the middle of Taladas.  There is way too much preventing Dragonlance be anywhere but its own planet.  And then you have to take into account the third continent, Adlatum, which flooded during the Cataclysm.

I really hate the idea of mixing worlds.  Just leave them apart so we can take Spelljammers to all of them.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 20, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> This could work, but then why bother? If the two settings are separated by a giant ocean and have no knowledge of each other, what is gained by putting Dark Sun on the same planet as Eberron? All you're doing is restricting what you can put into Dark Sun, with no benefit.




Dragonlance has this very issue with the continent of Taladas.  Only a limited few sages know of Taladas and vice versa.  Taladas is, for all intents and purposes, another setting.  Yes, it has Dragonlance elements to it (i.e. minotaurs, gnomes, kender), but many are turned around.  In a sense, Taladas is the "anti-Ansalon."  In a sense, it's a way to use some DL elements without going full on Ansalon.




Leatherhead said:


> I thought Hollow World was part of the hook for Mystara?




It is.  I just stole that idea.  Didn't do much with it, though.  In retrospect, it didn't add much.



CasvalRemDeikun said:


> The entire planet moved, not just one continent.  That is why having Krynn just be part of FR is impossible.  That and, Ansalon(in the southern hemisphere) has a continent on the opposite side of the planet, Taladas(in the northern hemisphere) that was also hit by the Cataclysm(a freaking meteor hit the planet, kinda hard for people in Faerun to miss that).  Where a large portion of Ansalon's landmass sunk into the ocean, a huge volcano formed in the middle of Taladas.  There is way too much preventing Dragonlance be anywhere but its own planet.  And then you have to take into account the third continent, Adlatum, which flooded during the Cataclysm.




Exactly right.  One theory suggests that the meteor that hit Ansalon went straight through the world of Krynn and actually exited through Taladas.  That's a bit far-fetched, though.



> I really hate the idea of mixing worlds.  Just leave them apart so we can take Spelljammers to all of them.






If you're going to mix worlds, then there needs to be some sort of benefit.  Otherwise, spelljammer or planar travel works just as well, and could offer some other cool adventures.  If you just want an element from one world in your own (i.e. warforged or half-giants), then take the 4e approach and mine those other worlds for ideas to transplant into your setting.

For example, let's say I was really keen on playing a warforged in Dragonlance.  They don't exist naturally, and on top of that, draconians already fill the role of the artificially-created soldiers that fought in the last great war.  But I really, really want to play a warforged!  No problem.  Just say that the warforged in question is a creation of a tinker gnome, given sentience by the god Reorx in order to fight against the draconians and restore the Balance to the world.  Now he roams the world, wholly alone and unique, looking for a purpose now that the war is over.

Wow, that's pretty good!  *scribbles down notes*


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 20, 2009)

Ugh, do not make normal steel weapons "magic" for Dark Sun, ye gods the problems that would cause, and I've warned others of it often enough in the past elsewhere! 

"_Oh so we find a +1 steel longsword...does that make it a +2 then?"_ 
bad bad bad!!
Inferior materials = penalties not benefits. *Don't screw up the baseli*ne

With 4th ed though, it's easy, just say inferior materials do not get the bonuses to hit you normally get with proficiency with a weapon, or less of the bonus, dead easy!
They are after all _Inferior_.

wood -2 attack, stone -1 attack, obsidian varies, as small pieces of obsidian are every bit as good as steel for somethings, better in fact (razor sharp) they just break now and then, larger chunks though break too much so an obsidian shortsword is largest youd likely get without magic/psionics. 
See also South American obsidian edged swords..they could slice you to bits.

So, say a shortsword of wood would only give +1 attack, rather than +3?

But it's easy to imagine materials as good as steel (there is already in Dark Sun, agafari wood for example, also drake hide for armour etc).  So, psionically tempered obsidian, drake claws etc could stand in for steel.

You need steel on Athas for beasties like the braxat which have damage reduction against everything but metal (which makes sense), and they don't break. You could say stone/obsidian weapons break on a roll of "1", nice and simple.

If you think about it, on Athas, wooden clubs/staves or ones made of ivory; daggers/spears/javelins and handaxes edged with obsidian or flint, and the sling, are the most likely weapons by logic.
Good wood is uncommon and valuable (compared to Earth and the Realms etc)

Longblades require very high tensile strength materials, and obsidian etc has too many flaws so it owuld shatter too often (though psionics or magic could fix that), so long and greatswords would be very rare.

Athasians are ignorant due to lack of chance to learn by books and culture etc, so skills would be kept to secrets in families/clans etc. They not stupid though, quite the opposite, so crafting skills would be damn good, or they'd have all perished!

One clan would know how to psionically temper obsidian, another how to make chitin armour as good as scale mail, and jealously guard their secrets.


----------



## Orius (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Just a strange idea that occurred to me.
> 
> What if Dark Sun is released as an AREA of another campaign world (probably Eberron).




Wouldn't work anyway, because defiling magic and all the other problems messed up the entire world on a global scale, even if we only see a small part of it.  Athas used be covereed with a big ocean, but not anymore. 

Besides, taking that approach would probably just piss off a good chunk of the settings fans.  Look how some Greyhawk fans like the Greyhawk Wars or how some Realms fans like the Spellplague.  Heck, look at how much DS fans didn't like Dragon's 3.5 approach.


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> Sounds to me like you want Al-Qadim or another Sandstorm book rather than Darksun. Once you take out the "death spiral" the word goes from apocalyptic to just another sandbox.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My original post was only meant to provoke conversation  I could care less how Dark Sun is done, or if it really is. It was really more of a lightning bolt of an idea of what _other_ people might do. I would not put it past WotC to "shove an entire world into another".... See Forgotten Realms and Returned Abeir. WotC has shown the hutzpa (or the gall) to disregard the wishes of some existing, devoted fans. Again, see the new Forgotten Realms. The ONLY reason that Eberron wasn't dramatically altered is because it wasn't really needed.

I believe that only the most devoted Dark Sun fans could name more than a single city from within the setting, let alone draw a world map. It's been my experience that most gamers liked the idea of Dark Sun, played a few games, and moved along. The IDEAS behind Dark Sun are what survive, not the geography nor the specifics. The death spiral is important, and it *is* more dramatic if it's a global event... but I don't think that detail is neccessary for books to sell.

However... with only 2 boks to publish and a starter adventure; I think WotC would do just fine by making Dark Sun a standard campaign setting. The PROBLEM with making DS a campaign setting along with FR and Eberron is that it breaks the idea that parts of D&D are interchangeable. It would be the first 4e campaign where lots of other material just wouldn't work. Warforged in Dark Sun? Anything from Divine Power? Any Divine classes? Anything from Adventurer's Vault 1 or 2? What about all the monsters from MM1 and MM2?

Though I think Dragonlance is less interesting than Dark Sun (though I love DL novels), I think that DL is a better fit for 4e with cross-product support.


----------



## CelticMutt (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> Warforged in Dark Sun?



Blue/Green Age relics with skins of chitin or bone instead of metal. 



> Anything from Divine Power? Any Divine classes?



In service to the Sorcerer Kings, Elemental Spirits, Avangions, etc.  Domain Powers/Feats from Divine Power make this inevitable.



> Anything from Adventurer's Vault 1 or 2?



Different material constructions, refluffed as psionic items, etc.



> What about all the monsters from MM1 and MM2?



What about elves, or halfings, or gith, etc.?  Easy to refluff - the bread and butter of 4e.

You are severely overestimating how difficult it would be to make a 4e Dark Sun.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> I believe that only the most devoted Dark Sun fans could name more than a single city from within the setting, let alone draw a world map.




*raised eyebrow* I wouldn't consider myself a "most devoted Dark Sun" fan - I never read the Prism Pentad, and I didn't bother with most of the lore introduced after the original set, since the more I saw of it the less I liked - but I can name more than one city.



Novem5er said:


> The PROBLEM with making DS a campaign setting along with FR and Eberron is that it breaks the idea that parts of D&D are interchangeable. It would be the first 4e campaign where lots of other material just wouldn't work. Warforged in Dark Sun?




Warforged work _perfectly_ in Dark Sun. The sorceror-kings have all manner of constructs and undead that fight for them. Tieflings are the only race I could see presenting problems to integrate into the setting.



Novem5er said:


> Anything from Divine Power? Any Divine classes?




Uh, you do realize that Dark Sun has ALWAYS had divine classes? Clerics and druids were in the setting from the get-go, and there was even a divine class designed specifically for Athas (the templar). The only divine class that was banned from Dark Sun was the paladin, and that was just because the paladin code clashed with the brutal pragmatism of the setting. 4E has done away with the paladin code, so the class works fine now.



Novem5er said:


> Anything from Adventurer's Vault 1 or 2? What about all the monsters from MM1 and MM2?




What about them? I don't see the problem here.


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 20, 2009)

I stand corrected... sort of.

I think that Dark Sun would work just fine in 4e... but not as 4e is written. You'd have to spend half a book to refluff everything to fit the mechanics that already exist in other sourcebooks.

ALL the races so far could fit in to Darksun... but just not the way they are written in the Players Handbooks. ALL of the classes could work fine in my opinion... but not as written in the PHB. All of the items would be fine with me... but now you have to refit them. There's no platemail, so magic armor types for plate would not exist in DS, which would lower the defense of certain defenders. You'd have to reskin so much!

I'm saying that Dark Sun would work great in 4e... it's just that certain elements of 2e Dark Sun have to be downplayed to make it more easily compatible with other 4e material.


----------



## avin (Jun 20, 2009)

One more draconian







²»ÏóºÃÈË µÄÏà²á | ÍøÒ×Ïà²á,Ó°¼¯,ÖÐ¹ú×î´óµÄ¸öÈËÏà²á,ÍêÈ«Ãâ·Ñ,ÎÞÏÞÈÝÁ¿

GG DL.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er, I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're kinda coming off as someone who's never even heard of Dark Sun aside from...well, this thread.

Bringing new races into Dark Sun wouldn't be too difficult - save one, but I'll get to that - so long as you downplay their *numbers*.  So you can have x new race in Dark Sun, but just very few of them - they could be a mutation, or simply a rarely seen _x race_ from the wastelands.

The only problematic one I see is the Wilden, which I really cannot comprehend fitting in well.

As for downplaying 2e stuff, _no._  They _tried_ downplaying previous setting lore with FR, and that didn't go very well.

That said, I think Dark Sun is not going to happen in 4e.  4e is all about letting you use all the materials everywhere - see the "EVERYTHING IS CORE!" clause.  Dark Sun, on the other hand, *does not*, to put it nicely.  Races and classes can _kinda_ fit, but you need to do some work with them, and while four or five races can be done, when everything is core, doing it with fourteen or fifteen races is where it becomes hard.  Then there's the problem with deities, and the problems with items, and so on, and so on.

I think Dark Sun just deviates in too many ways for it to be considered.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

avin said:


> One more draconian
> 
> GG DL.




IDK, they could just be for the upcoming Draconomicon 2, which is supposed to feature the metallic dragons and presumably creatures related to them. But then again there is another Minotaur.


----------



## rounser (Jun 20, 2009)

> I think Dark Sun just deviates in too many ways for it to be considered.



Based on what's already been done to FR and the implied setting, what gives you the impression that Dark Sun's integrity as a setting will be considered a sacred cow immune to slaughter?  It's not as popular as FR, nor as fundamental as the implied setting, and arguably they've both been compromised extensively.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> IDK, they could just be for the upcoming Draconomicon 2, which is supposed to feature the metallic dragons and presumably creatures related to them. But then again there is another Minotaur.




Minotaurs were being presented as something WotC wanted to do cool things with even in the MM. They had never really had civilized minotaurs before, and yet that's what they included in the MM, and I think this has just as much to do with the fans of WoW's taurens as it does any imminent DL campaign.

So, given this year is the 25th anniversary of DL, anything that gets presented as evidence is by necessity going to have to be seen in that light.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 20, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> For example, let's say I was really keen on playing a warforged in Dragonlance.  They don't exist naturally, and on top of that, draconians already fill the role of the artificially-created soldiers that fought in the last great war.  But I really, really want to play a warforged!  No problem.  Just say that the warforged in question is a creation of a tinker gnome, given sentience by the god Reorx in order to fight against the draconians and restore the Balance to the world.  Now he roams the world, wholly alone and unique, looking for a purpose now that the war is over.




Steve Austin, swordsman. A man barely alive. 
"Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the alchemy. 
We have the capability to build the world's first alchemic man. 
Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. 
Better, stronger, faster."

That sounds like a great backstory for a warforged added as an exception in a world without warforged


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 20, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> See also South American obsidian edged swords..they could slice you to bits.




Just for your info, macuahuitls were not south american, but rather north and central american. They were commonly broadsword-sized but there were a few that were two-handers (as tall as a man).

As a matter of fact, we can look into Mesoamerican cultures -- Mexica, Toltec, Maya, etc. for clues on how a culture without bronze, iron or steel would create diverse tools and weapons that would not necessarily require a penalty vs their metal equivalents.

Obsidian use in Mesoamerica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 20, 2009)

So the Sivak and the Aurak?  Hmmm, I'm still going with draconians appearing in _Draconomicon 2_.


----------



## Novem5er (Jun 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Novem5er, I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're kinda coming off as someone who's never even heard of Dark Sun aside from...well, this thread.
> 
> Bringing new races into Dark Sun wouldn't be too difficult - save one, but I'll get to that - so long as you downplay their *numbers*.  So you can have x new race in Dark Sun, but just very few of them - they could be a mutation, or simply a rarely seen _x race_ from the wastelands.
> 
> ...




No offense taken. Trust me, my Dark Sun knowledge is not extensive. I flipped through the 2e boxed set, played a few sessions, and that was about it. I'm willing to bet that my experience with Dark Sun is more common to D&D players than those who can name cities, NPCs, or cite an extensive history of the land.

But your post confuses me b/c I agree with you completely! Yes, Dark Sun could be retrofitted just fine for 4e.... BUT as you pointed out, there is just TOO MUCH 4e stuff to smash it into Dark Sun easily. Thus, if they DO release Dark Sun, my opinion is that they will abandon much of the old lore, or simply write over it (as they have already proven willing to do, i.e. 4e Realms). If WotC is willing to do this, then Dark Sun would also work just fine as a drop-in area to existing campaign settings.

Heck, it could be a Super Adventure like the Giants set they are releasing this year. The adventure has one meta plot: destroy the Dragon King(s) and end the curse on the land, however, there are 10-20-30 levels worth of material to create adventures around.

But I think I'm done in this thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone... I'm just throwing out a possibility. With this mindset, I think Dragonlance is a more realistic release as a 2010 campaign setting.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2009)

Novem5er said:


> But your post confuses me b/c I agree with you completely! Yes, Dark Sun could be retrofitted just fine for 4e.... BUT as you pointed out, there is just TOO MUCH 4e stuff to smash it into Dark Sun easily. Thus, if they DO release Dark Sun, my opinion is that they will abandon much of the old lore, or simply write over it (as they have already proven willing to do, i.e. 4e Realms). If WotC is willing to do this, then Dark Sun would also work just fine as a drop-in area to existing campaign settings.




It's probably worth noting that we also have 4e Eberron to look at now (Player's Guide is out; Campaign Guide is next month and several previews have appeared in D&Di), and it was very much not a reboot.

Devas, Goliaths, Tieflings, and Genasi are extroadinarily rare. Dragonborn mostly live on a continent PCs will never see. Eladrin are a small number of refugees from another plane. Drow don't even get a paragrpah in the races section of the player's guide (and Gnolls, Goblins, Kobolds, Minotaurs, and Orcs do). And this is in a setting where 'if it's in D&D, it's in Eberron'. A 4e Dark Sun could easily say some races just aren't there (or avoid mentioning them).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm of the opinion that Draconomicon 2 is gonna have the draconians.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 20, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> I'm of the opinion that Draconomicon 2 is gonna have the draconians.




I could see that, but then from a WotC business PoV... wouldn't it be great to have a setting that practically forces, or at least strongly nudges you, to buy the two Draconomicons if you want to get the most out of it?  I don't see Dark Sun as promoting the type of cross purchasing WotC is trying to push with it's products compatibility... Dragonlance however very much would.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 20, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Just for your info, macuahuitls were not south american, but rather north and central american. They were commonly broadsword-sized but there were a few that were two-handers (as tall as a man).
> 
> As a matter of fact, we can look into Mesoamerican cultures -- Mexica, Toltec, Maya, etc. for clues on how a culture without bronze, iron or steel would create diverse tools and weapons that would not necessarily require a penalty vs their metal equivalents.
> 
> Obsidian use in Mesoamerica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I stand corrected! 

But such wepaons *do* break a lot more than steel weapons it's the inherent nature of obsidian, which is a glass, glass = too many fractures even though it's far far harder than steel, and it's fitted into wood with glues etc. 
Though if the weapon has many "chips" and some break it's not such a big deal. You'd just repair it after each fight form a bag of chips and glue!

I'm sure you could come up with simple rules for poor quality wepoans breaking or attack penalties.

But as I noted, using psionics or magic, you could remove the flaws, sort of like real life glass hardened steel, so you'd end up with an awesome weapon material, it's only flaws being that it would be light (1/3rd? the weight of steel so less mass for crushing but we cna ignore that for 4th ed as it's nt meant to be simulationist) and some beasties in Athas have _damage reduction -  iron_, liek the braxat (which is one reason why they are such nasty SOBs). 
Obsidian is still used as a surgial scalpel material, which is amazing 

Aye the level of skills of such people show what I mean about Athas, if those folks in our past could make fortresses who's stone blocks really do have such fine jointing you can barely slip a knife between even today....carved out without metal tools...and very intricate irrigation systems, advanced mathematics...hey, I'm pretty sure Athasians would be interesting folk indeed, too!

Personally, I am absolutely amazed at the skill of our ancestors. they didn't need bloody UFOs to build the pyramids, lol, just a hell of  alot of brains, skill and incredible toil and trial and error. 
Using water channels to get a perfectly level base for building, such a simple but astounding thing, I am gobsmacked by that genius! 

If you add in what psionics and magic could bring, or cultures and info that maybe tens, hundreds of thousands of years old...what they might achieve!!!
hard thing to grasp but we look at things from a *21st century Earth Human perspective*, our knowledge maybe be absolutely woeful in ways compared to other people who quite literally think differently and have had vast times to learn.
The vast bulk of our science is only 2 centuries old. What could a psionic people learn in 100,000?!!

 But as said, because the Sorceror Kings have made writing a death penalty for any non-templar or noble, (so the evil SOBs can keep power and wipe out preservers), there's a lot of ignorance in Dark Sun, with knowledge highly prized and covetted. 
You can iamgine folk using Athasian "bards" (assassins/spies etc) to get info on their crafting techniques. An adventure might be around the PCs stealing an alchemical formulae from a dwarven craftsman for the elves of the Elven Market, who sell it to House Shom, etc.

In Dark Sun, it's noted that alchemcy is well known (potion fruit, greek fire etc) but we didn't have to much of an "alchemical" system in 2nd ed, that we do now.
So adding the alchemical items from the Adventurer's Vault makes perfect sense, and you can imagine some of the Merchant Houses specializing in some specific things.
Trade was important, I love the trade map that came with "Dune Trader", showing how it flowed. Also, trade = caravans, great adventure points as on Athas they have the huge "Argossies", so you have a mobile fort to defend or attack.




Cam Banks said:


> Minotaurs were being presented as something WotC wanted to do cool things with even in the MM. They had never really had civilized minotaurs before, and yet that's what they included in the MM, and I think this has just as much to do with the fans of WoW's taurens as it does any imminent DL campaign.
> 
> So, given this year is the 25th anniversary of DL, anything that gets presented as evidence is by necessity going to have to be seen in that light.
> 
> ...




Well, we've had civilized minotaurs in D&D since Dragonlance, so not sure what yer getting at?  And lots of folk homebrewed "civilized" minotaurs before or after that.
3rd ed screwed up minotaurs and some other races with the horrible racial hit dice and ECL stuff, ick. (The racial hit dice in particular was bad.)


Novem5er,
Mutation and weird beasties go hand-in-hand with Dark Sun, so there's no real issue, provided you can fit it in with what's come before.

-Devas, ancient reborn spirits of preservers forever fighting the soercor kings?
-Goliaths, plenty or barren strange areas they cna come form and fit right in.
-Gnomes were supposed ot have been wiped out in the "official history in the novels* (which I _detest_). The more-fey, unworldly way of gnomes now fits in ok rather than the cheeryful tinkerers of before. While links with the feywild are likely almost non-existant, the ethos of the sneaky non-human gnome is ok.
-Eladrin, the original elves of old? Very rare indeed.
-Dragonborn, well folk say they can be dray, but dray are a bit different (design and looks as athasian dragons are lithe and almost serpentine) and and are the madly devoted servants of their mad wanna-be-god sorceror-king-part-dragon-undead, Dregoth.  Ordinary folk fear dragonic things with damn good reason, the Dragon of Tyr could eat the tarrasque for breakfast! So something good would need ot be created for them. Maybe a re-working of the _first _dray, who Dregoth found repulsive and abandoned? That could work as they are less zealous and more normal in power.

You can fit in almost anything you want by saying it's a "Mutation" created by the effects of the Dark Sun, defiling magic or psionics, or the Pritine Tower (if you follow the offiicial history, a structure that warps any creature that comes near it into new forms). So I really don't see mcuh problemwith almost any race.

There are ntoed extrapalanr gates on Athas, they are jsut extremely rare except tot he Elemental Planes, the Ethereal was very  hard ot get into due ot the "Grey", and the Astral is blocked totally (except for one ancient gate the Githyanki opened again in a module). Wish I coudl recall where but I think ther'es mention of some gates to the Abyss and demons, so I used that in some of my adbentures, so tieflings arne't so impossible. 
Also, since tieflings have fire resistance, that makes them VERY good characters for the fiery wastes of Athas!

Another issue is that the "Tyr Region" is only one very small part of Athas, who knows what else is out there...

Dark Sun also had two avian races, the aarackocra and the pterrans.


But then again....despite all what we think....they designers could still surprise us and give us Spelljammer!! 







I know folk love Draognlance, but I honestly jsut can't see it as that big a need for a setting, as it's got no "oomph", to me, as a D&D setting. It's another alternate Prime Plane world, not so different form the Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron or Kalamar etc....though a diversity of worlds is great for Spelljammer or Planescape adventures of course, as you need places ot go _too_!


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 20, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I could see that, but then from a WotC business PoV... wouldn't it be great to have a setting that practically forces, or at least strongly nudges you, to buy the two Draconomicons if you want to get the most out of it?  I don't see Dark Sun as promoting the type of cross purchasing WotC is trying to push with it's products compatibility... Dragonlance however very much would.




Dark Sun may not cross-promote with the Draconomicon 2, but it most certainly would with the PHB 3 due to the psionics content.  If I was intent on releasing Dark Sun, it would be around the introduction of psionics to 4e.  Likewise, I'd put more effort into supporting PHB 3, which should sell better than Draconomicon 2 anyway.

That being said, we could all be surprised.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 20, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Dark Sun may not cross-promote with the Draconomicon 2, but it most certainly would with the PHB 3 due to the psionics content. If I was intent on releasing Dark Sun, it would be around the introduction of psionics to 4e. Likewise, I'd put more effort into supporting PHB 3, which should sell better than Draconomicon 2 anyway.
> 
> That being said, we could all be surprised.




Again I could be wrong but I'm gonna bet the PHB's are WotC's bestsellers next to (perhaps even moreso) than the core rulebooks.  In other words I think there's less reason to try to push PHB 3 sales specifically (as they have already stated anything in a PHB will be in the campaign settings they release).  I think they have more interest in promoting books like Draconomicon 1 and Draconomicon 2, since they probably sell magnitudes less than a new PHB... but then again who knows.


----------



## CelticMutt (Jun 20, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Again I could be wrong but I'm gonna bet the PHB's are WotC's bestsellers next to (perhaps even moreso) than the core rulebooks.  In other words I think there's less reason to try to push PHB 3 sales specifically (as they have already stated anything in a PHB will be in the campaign settings they release).  I think they have more interest in promoting books like Draconomicon 1 and Draconomicon 2, since they probably sell magnitudes less than a new PHB... but then again who knows.




You would think that, but it's pretty rare.  A lot of media industries focus more on the stuff they know will sell, than the stuff that actually needs help - for example Marvel and DC comics spend way more advertising on their big name series than on the little fries (which often inevitably leads to the little fries getting canceled ... oops).


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 21, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I could see that, but then from a WotC business PoV... wouldn't it be great to have a setting that practically forces, or at least strongly nudges you, to buy the two Draconomicons if you want to get the most out of it?  I don't see Dark Sun as promoting the type of cross purchasing WotC is trying to push with it's products compatibility... Dragonlance however very much would.




Pushing the PHB3 is much better business than pushing the Draconomicons IMO. Only one person at the table is likely to buy a Draconomicon (the DM), but everybody buys PHBs.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 21, 2009)

If we break down darksun here is what matters:

1)Post apocolptic dessert/Survival setting with harsh enviorments...

2) Dragon king/tryants ruleing over small city states

I bet 1 paragraph per race would be all the modfiers needed...and plat is not a no go, it is just rare as heck...


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 22, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I stand corrected!
> Well, we've had civilized minotaurs in D&D since Dragonlance, so not sure what yer getting at?  And lots of folk homebrewed "civilized" minotaurs before or after that.
> 3rd ed screwed up minotaurs and some other races with the horrible racial hit dice and ECL stuff, ick. (The racial hit dice in particular was bad.)




I'm not talking about Savage Species minotaurs. Our Dragonlance minotaurs were a +0 ECL race. Pushed the envelope a little, but it was there.

What I was getting at is that having minotaurs provided in the PHB3 is not an indication that suddenly 4E is into the civilized minotaur schtick. They have had that in play since the MM came out with 4E's release. It's something they want to put up front now for minotaurs, as opposed to treating them like monsters in previous edition core rules.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If we break down darksun here is what matters:
> 
> 1)Post apocolptic dessert/Survival setting with harsh enviorments...
> 
> ...




You missed out slavery in #1 as part of the "harshness" of it.
and most importantly:

#3) Psionics!
Dark Sun from the start, had psionics at it's core, which is unique in D&D.
Since PHb3 adds the psionic power source and we know that for fact...

Only Planescape and Spelljammer had otherwise much to do with psionics, as far as settings go, and that's mosly due to mindflayers (major faction in Spelljammer as enemies and merchants, and to a lesser extent in Planescape) and a few other creatures like githzerai.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 22, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> You missed out slavery in #1 as part of the "harshness" of it.
> and most importantly:
> 
> #3) Psionics!
> ...




Eberron has psionics too


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 22, 2009)

To add fuel to the Dragonlance fire, todays playtest - Volcanic Dragons remind me alot of the Chaos Dragons for the Chaos War.....


----------



## Aloïsius (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm NOT interested in Dragonlance (we already have two standard vanilla fantasy setting...). I would buy a 4e Dark Sun as soon as I can (and I would probably run it without modifications, something I won't do with "standard" 4e). 
All the polls I saw on internet showed that Dark Sun lead by a wide margin. It's tied with psionic, who will be out with PHB3. 

So, I will be absolutely disappointed if Dragonlance comes in 2010 and not Dark Sun.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 22, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> I'm NOT interested in Dragonlance (we already have two standard vanilla fantasy setting...). I would buy a 4e Dark Sun as soon as I can (and I would probably run it without modifications, something I won't do with "standard" 4e).
> All the polls I saw on internet showed that Dark Sun lead by a wide margin. It's tied with psionic, who will be out with PHB3.
> 
> So, I will be absolutely disappointed if Dragonlance comes in 2010 and not Dark Sun.




This.

What I am hopeing for is some ind of announce ment that WOTC will be doing Dark SUn and Weis and Hickmans company will be doing Dragonlance, with some support from DDI.  Everyone happy


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 22, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I stand corrected!
> 
> -Dragonborn, well folk say they can be dray, but dray are a bit different (design and looks as athasian dragons are lithe and almost serpentine) and and are the madly devoted servants of their mad wanna-be-god sorceror-king-part-dragon-undead, Dregoth.  Ordinary folk fear dragonic things with damn good reason, the Dragon of Tyr could eat the tarrasque for breakfast! So something good would need ot be created for them. Maybe a re-working of the _first _dray, who Dregoth found repulsive and abandoned? That could work as they are less zealous and more normal in power.




I've always wondered what this creature was:







Looks very Dragon-borny to me..

More fuel for the Dragonlance fire is that there is a comp to find the most Fanatical Dragonlancer and he will win a trip to Gen-Con. hmmm..


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 22, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Eberron has psionics too




Ah, true, sorry!  Kalashtar vs Inspired.

Vaganundo,
that fellow is actually an elf...or was an elf, until he encountered the "Pristine Tower". Now he's something new and unique. He's "Magnus" iirc?

the official history (blech!) has it that the tower was part of..a plan to ...well I won't spoil it for you but it basically re-makes creatures into new, random forms. So passing creatures, heroes or whatever intrigued by the place get mutated into something different.
Thus Athas does have a place for almost any living race.

Since _thri-kreen and half-giants _are mentioned in the Eberron Player's guide, which I got on Saturday  Hey ....

Would be good if they did both Dark Sun and Dragonlance, but DL I think'd best be done as a module, novel, online presence, or something of that nature.
Tinker gnomes and kender are fun character races, as are Imperial minotaurs (I'd like a minotaur version without Baphomet and charging / headbutting as their schtick!). 
But the setting would need a massive re-write to give it "Oomph" and fix all the mess done by multiple catastrophic wars/changes etc....sort of like what they did to 4th ed Forgotten Relams but in reverse!


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 22, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Vaganundo,
> that fellow is actually an elf...or was an elf, until he encountered the "Pristine Tower". Now he's something new and unique. He's "Magnus" iirc?




I think he's talking about the big ugly guy on the left, not the guy with the glowy hand. Or was that the one you meant?


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 22, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Steve Austin, swordsman. A man barely alive.
> "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the alchemy.
> We have the capability to build the world's first alchemic man.
> Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before.
> ...




Yea its not like DL has any story support for rebuilding people... who say got there arm cut off... : )


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 22, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Thus Athas does have a place for almost any living race.




There are some dead races, so not everything would be allowed.  However, I think you could fit a lot in DS race-wise.



> Would be good if they did both Dark Sun and Dragonlance, but DL I think'd best be done as a module, novel, online presence, or something of that nature.




A lot of people say DL is vanilla, and I can understand their reasoning.  However, I think what it has over other worlds is that it is so story-driven.  DL would be an excellent chance for WotC to showcase how role-playing isn't just combat and dungeons.




> Tinker gnomes and kender are fun character races, as are Imperial minotaurs (I'd like a minotaur version without Baphomet and charging / headbutting as their schtick!).




Minotaurs in Dragonlance are way cool.  They've got a brutal sense of honor (think Klingons here), they're warriors, and they're mariners.  Plus, they worship the god Sargas (Sargonnas), god of vengeance.  Minotaurs have been slaves several times in their history.  That's why they intend on being the masters.  While some folks are content with conquering Ansalon, the minotaurs intend on conquering the world.




> But the setting would need a massive re-write to give it "Oomph" and fix all the mess done by multiple catastrophic wars/changes etc....sort of like what they did to 4th ed Forgotten Relams but in reverse!




I think we did a pretty good job presenting a cohesive setting in 3.5.  All that would be needed is an update, perhaps with a bit of a time jump.  The last thing Dragonlance needs is another cataclysm.  

More 4th edition elements might fit than what you think.  There's already things in place that would allow for the inclusion of devas, dragonborn, and eladrin, for example.  Most classes would fit in nicely, with maybe a little bit of fluff text to explain a few.  Only the warlock presents a problem, but maybe some fluff text or a set of three moon pacts would make it work out nicely.


----------

