# Okay so you hate Dragonlance, how can the current designers improve it?



## Kai Lord (Mar 23, 2005)

I noticed poor old DL mentioned an awful lot on the "Least Favorite Setting" thread, so I'm curious as to whether or not those who have played it and disliked it have any recommendations on how to make it more appealing to today's gamers?

Is it a simple thing like production values?  If all the new covers were by Todd Lockwood and the interiors done by Wayne Reynolds would it make a difference to you?

More continents and "unknown" regions not covered by the novels like Eberron?

Different pantheons, organizations, or anything else?  A *complete* overhaul and rewriting of the War of the Lance in gaming form in the tradition Marvel's "Ultimate" comic books?

What does it need?  Let's say there was no limit to what the current designers could do to improve the setting, what would you recommend?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 23, 2005)

Nothing could get me to play Dragonlance. Sure, I've got a couple of the d20 books, but that because I mine the rules material for my own games. I like the game mechanics end of things, but the flavor just doesn't grab me. 

Really, I have enough world to use with my homebrew, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and all the Star Wars games I run. Its just so much, and I enjoy all of it well enough that I don't really have the time or the interest to jump into something else unless it REALLY catches my eye. Eberron did that. Dragonlance just...its just Dragonlance.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Mar 23, 2005)

DL is very character based.  Very, very character based.  It's also been blown up too many times for me to really trust it.

Don't get me wrong.  I think the Knights of Tahahkis. Takararis, Tahkarisis,  .... Tiamat are a really cool concept.  I also -- mods, please don't ban me -- like Tinker Gnomes.  Love 'em or hate 'em, it's an original idea.  So was the 1e version of the good-guy knights, in 3e we think they're a little dull, but multiclassing was very new in 1e and at the time only bards did it.  I also thought the last trilogy was neat.  The most memorable moment was when Tanis realizes that the gods never left and that the entire planet was orbiting a different star.  I didn't see that coming and I probably should have. Kudos to W&H!

But the game has caught up with DL.  As it stands now, it's traditional fantasy with tweaks on the magic system.  If people are having fun with it: PARTY ON!   But I really, really don't want to invest in a world that could blow up at any time.


----------



## shaylon (Mar 23, 2005)

Basically, the 5th Age ruined DL for me.  I loved the novels, loved the 1E/2E stuff, but the 5th age storyline ruined it for me.  When I read Dawning of a New Age, by Jean Rabe, she did me in.  In the first chapter or two, she sets up Maelstryx, and then in one short paragraph, she fast forwards 30 years.  30 years?  It just stuck a negative in my mind.

I tried the War of the Lost Souls series, thinking with Hickman and Weis back at the helm it would turn it around.  It hasn't.

I am still a big Margaret Weis fan, and support her and Jaime Chambers as often as I can by buying novels direct and even the sourcebook.  At the time I bought it, I had full knowledge that I had no intention of ever playing it.  I will continue to support her and her company as her writing was very influentual to me, but I don't see myself ever playing the campaign.  Too much has been done wrong.

As far as this post goes, I realize I talked a lot about the novels that were written and little about the game, but my position is this:  With Dragonlance, the novels are crucial to understanding and playing the campaign.  The world (at least the supported world, Ansalon) is small enough that the major players of the books come into play early and often in a campaign.  I didn't like the way the novels played out, so I couldn't see playing in a campaign and having to deal with Mina and the rest of the butchered characters from the setting.

Now with other settings, say the realms, novels can be important, but if you don't like the way they are taking the plot, you can put the setting in any number of places that have nothign to do with novels.  I am in a play by post in the vast currently.  No sign of Elminster, Danilo, Khelben, or any other famous people.  Just a bard, wizard, cleric, ranger, fighter, and thief trying to make our way to Raven's Bluff.

Sorry to ramble, but I feel strongly about this.  I loved DL as a kid, and if it was about the same as it was when I was a kid, I'd still be playing there.

-Shay


----------



## Crothian (Mar 23, 2005)

They already did.  I was like many of the posters and not a Dragonlance fan.  That was until the d20 books started coming out and I understodd that they got it right, finally.  It is not the best setting out there or a perfect setting.  But they finally put Dragonlance into an RPG in a way that I could run and enjoy it.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 23, 2005)

There is nothing wrong with DragonLance at all and Sovereign Press is doing an excellent job.

If you haven't noticed, every hardcover Sov Press has put out for DL has sold out and are about to go into their second printings = except for WotL and that's because they printed more of those . (An excellent book by the way.)

Part one of their fifth age adventure Key of Destiny  - a fatty at 180+ pages - sold out.  In an age where adventures don't sell - DragonLance adventures do.

If there is problem with DragonLance, its people's attitude towards it.  You get it from DL's detractors - and you get it from a lot of its fans too:

it's the novels, pure and simple.

There  are more DL novels than there are for any other world.  Given the sheer volume and mass, and the popularity of the "core" novels by Weis which sell like bejeezus, there is this dogged belief that the game setting should, nay *must* reflect these novels.

It's ironic, because the Chronicles were based on the game setting, not the other way around. But it has come full circle now and new fans want the game setting to reflect the novels.

Problem is: There are too many novels and no central editing.  It's just not possible for the game world to reflect all of this - and the more you try, the more you surrender your game world to the next big metaplot.

You end up having your game world being run by an author who is getting paid to write the Next Big Thing.  And that is a prescription for disaster.

So it's simple: don't do that.  Keep the setting the way you like it - read the novels for what they are - and make your game world your own.  If you let someone else DM your world for you - it will be a disaster.  That is true no matter what setting you are referring to.

I run a dreaded "alternate history" of Krynn set in the War of the Lance.  That means the Chronicles never happened - and virtually everything that followed them never happened.  It's my world - and I can do with it what I want. I pick and choose, plain and simple. 

I think all DMs should do this - but for some reason - (probably because the DL Chronicles have sold 20 million copies and have rabid fans who want to recreate them) a LOT of DL fans and DMs cannot bring themselves to do this.

Small wonder there are those who dislike DL.  I'd hate it too if I had a crappy DM run FR Eberron or what have you for me too.

It's not the setting; it's the DM and the players.  DL under Sovereign Press is moseying along quite nicely, thank-you-very-much.  Demonstrably. they don't need any advice from ENWorlders.  They are one of the few publishers who are selling out their licensed D20 material.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 23, 2005)

I thought that the pre-D20 versions of Dragonlance were okay. Not bad,not good, not great, just okay. But when I bought the D20 Dragonlance campaign book I was automatically in love. I loved it so much I ran out and bought a second copy. Since that time my interest in other things got piqued and my D20 book collection rivaled my WotC 3.X book collection. I think after I buy Experts, I am going to snap up what I can for Dragonlance (what, theres three other books and one module right?) then try to beef up my WotC stuff.


----------



## Psion (Mar 23, 2005)

I don't think it's worthwhile to try. What the fans of it seem to love is by and large what I can't stand.

There are plenty of settings out there. No need to break what is obviously working for some folks in order to please folks who probably aren't going to respond to the effort.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 23, 2005)

To me DL is a standard fantasy, and I already have GH and FR stuff.  Novels were fun, but no GREAT need to play in the setting.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 23, 2005)

I think, at this point, I would seriously consider re-imagining the entire setting - basically pull all the good elements of DL out, scrap the rest and literally remake the world anew without the burden of it's prior history. 

The core theme of DL is really just having a big overarching campaign of good vs evil... with, uh, dragons.  

Let's say Tiamat uncovers the secret to barring divine access (Lady of Pain's perhaps?  ) and cuts Krynn off from all but the Lower Planes. She builds a huge and stable portal to Krynn and unleashes a demonic horde of dragons, demons and draconians into the world. They quickly carve out a power-base and it's up to the PCs go forth and kick ass. Perhaps Tiamat is keeping Krynn a secret from the other Demon Lords and perhaps the PCs will be forced to try and play them against her. A lot of the adventures would happen in the Outer Planes too - cutting off supply lines... in the Abyss, "smuggling" in good dragons from the Upper Planes, via the Lower Planes and into Krynn... that sort of thing. Definitely something a little on the edgier side. 

Yeah, I'd play that...

Cheers!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 23, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I think, at this point, I would seriously consider re-imagining the entire setting




They just did this. It was called the War of Souls.  Seeing it was the third great coflict, I can do without a fourth anytime soon.



> Perhaps Tiamat is keeping Krynn a secret from the other Demon Lords and perhaps the PCs will be forced to try and play them against her. A lot of the adventures would happen in the Outer Planes too - cutting off supply lines... in the Abyss, "smuggling" in good dragons from the Upper Planes, via the Lower Planes and into Krynn... that sort of thing. Definitely something a little on the edgier side.




I think you are showing your prejudices and preferences here.

DragonLance is not a plane hopping setting.  In fact, heading off to the Abysss is verbotten in stock Krynn mythology.  If you are a Planescape fan - DL is simply not designed for you.

And I might add; it's very much a case of vice versa.  Speaking from experience - if you are a DL fan, Planescape is generally the setting you hate the most.

There is little point trying to make DL more like Planescape; and even less trying to make Plansecape more like DL.  I think the two settings  are at the extreme and are rather polar opposites as far as WotC/TSR settings go.


----------



## Sarellion (Mar 23, 2005)

I liked the novels and the computer games. I stopped reading after the books about the chaos war.

They should have stopped with their major wars after the war of the lance. Even if the war of souls changed a lot around, this shouldn´t have been necessary in the first place.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 23, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> They just did this. It was called the War of Souls. Seeing it was the third great coflict, I can do without a fourth anytime soon.



When I said re-imagined, I really did mean ditching the previous history...


> I think you are showing your prejudices and preferences here.



Well, then forgive me for asking, but... what was the point of this thread again?  Hmm, I pretty sure it had something to do with how one might suggest ways to improve the setting to be more popular in general. If I'm mistaken, please let me know...


> DragonLance is not a plane hopping setting. In fact, heading off to the Abysss is verbotten in stock Krynn mythology. If you are a Planescape fan - DL is simply not designed for you.
> 
> And I might add; it's very much a case of vice versa. Speaking from experience - if you are a DL fan, Planescape is generally the setting you hate the most.



Wow, is that a fact... Well, you see, I got a feeling that this thread wasn't created soley to cater to the few hardcore DL fans left in D&D, but perhaps to come up with was to broaden it's appeal. I readily admit, this is only my humble opinion - take it for what it's worth. I've run campaigns in both (and both *together* mind you) and while I'm not big on the later DL stuff, the early works I still quite like. 


> There is little point trying to make DL more like Planescape; and even less trying to make Plansecape more like DL. I think the two settings are at the extreme and are rather polar opposites as far as WotC/TSR settings go.



I dunno, dragons, demons, exotic locales, good vs evil... doesn't sound like oil and water to me. *shrug*

Cheers!


----------



## Elric (Mar 23, 2005)

As has already been mentioned, the 5th age novels by Jean Rabe were some of the worst novels written for the series (certainly by far the worst Dragonlance novels that I’ve ever read).  The War of Souls helped this but by continuing to follow some of Rabe’s plot (instead of disregarding it entirely) I felt that Weiss and Hickman were limited in what they could do with the series.  

Really, though, the power of the novels is the problem.  I didn’t like playing in Star Wars either.  For me, attempts to turn Star Wars into novels or an RPG were just doomed by the fact that I viewed the series as the movies and not books or a setting to roleplay in.

I do recall having played with the dragonlance campaign rules in 2e but the setting was mostly absent- I think that a few of my friends all thought that playing the characters would be great but recognized that the developed setting had been built by the novels.  So we used the Knights, the draconians, some of the magic items and so on without appropriating the plotline of the world.

An alternate plotline (the events of Chronicles never took place) would be interesting but it still runs into the problem of playing in the War of the Lance.  A less explored time period like from The Legend of Huma might be an even better place to run an alternate history.


----------



## Turjan (Mar 23, 2005)

For me, there's nothing that can be done to redeem the setting in my eyes. Dragonlance is the novels. They are completely overshadowing the setting. As funny as it may sound, I never had this feeling in the FR. In the end, I don't need Dragonlance as a standard fantasy setting, as I've got FR and my homebrew.

One minor point is that I already have someone in my group who likes to play obnoxious gnomes. I'm pretty sure he would be overjoyed to play an even more obnoxious kender...


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 23, 2005)

I think a lot of the hate-on for DL comes from people who can't get past the (erroneous) belief that DL is all about railroading. C'mon folks, the classic modules were like 20 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

I was woefully turned off by the Saga era and the 5th Age stuff. Same with all the current timeline crap (IMO). That's why I run a post-WotL era campaign and it's great.

Like someone else said, having read the novels makes a HUGE difference to the game. It adds a whole different level of depth to campaigns, especially once you really get to know the world. And there are a lot of really good new novels being published (I don't like the current timeline ones, but there are a lot that take place in earlier eras of play). DL is, IMHO, the most richly developed campaign world out there (in terms of fluff, rather than crunch).

As for plane-hopping, that's not DL. Sorry, it's just a fact. Some of the core DL books even state that. So stick to Planescape if that's what floats yer boat. One of the things that makes DL great is its uniqueness. Sure you can add in extraplanar creatures out the ying-yang, but before you know it you're playing DL in name only and the true "style" of the world becomes lost. And then it becomes just another FR or GH.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 23, 2005)

Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?


----------



## pogre (Mar 23, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think it's worthwhile to try. What the fans of it seem to love is by and large what I can't stand.
> 
> There are plenty of settings out there. No need to break what is obviously working for some folks in order to please folks who probably aren't going to respond to the effort.




Exactly - another man's junk and all that...

What I would change about DL would alienate its outstanding fan base - why do that?


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 23, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?



As a gamer or as a purely fantasy fiction reader?

I've yet to see the new incarnation of _Dragonlance._ I loved the old version, even when they released a 2e adaptation in a boxed set. I was then put off by this card-based _SAGA System_ (now I know how 1e gamers feel about 2e and quit). I ignore everything from the Fifth Age, both game and novel series.

I'm hoping that the Sovereign Press's _Dragonlance_ will bring me back to the golden days, now that they have already released a hefty _War of the Lance_ sourcebook. If you don't like the current direction and timeline, go back and change it.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 23, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?




They were hit and miss for me.  Some where pretty good others were not even good for gaming fiction!!


----------



## reanjr (Mar 23, 2005)

I love the Dragonlance world and novels.  In the past, I hated it as a campaign setting.  It just didn't seem very playable for some reason.  It had a bit of the mover-and-shaker syndrome that FR is generally known for.  And it didn't have the amount of detail to avoid this problem.

In the 3e incarcation, though, I think they've made a truly enjoyable setting for reading and for playing.  The more hands off approach of the gods, the non-dominance the major organizations have fallen to (Wizards of High Sorcery, Knights of Solamnia, Knights of Neraka), the problems the elves now face all add up to a much more entertaining world for play.

Even the War of the Lance sourcebook gives all sorts of tools to build your own Ansalon rather than play the published one.  The army details, little-known NPCs, etc.

The only disappointment for me so far has been the Beastiary.  Not because it's bad in any way, it just doesn't match the SAGA beastiary, a book I consider one of the best of its kind.


----------



## reanjr (Mar 23, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> And I might add; it's very much a case of vice versa.  Speaking from experience - if you are a DL fan, Planescape is generally the setting you hate the most.




I'm a Dragonlance fan.  I also LOVE Planescape.  The only settings I never got into were Forgotten Realms (and all of its tagalongs like Al Qadim, Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc.), Greyhawk, and Spelljammer.  I personally think Planescape and Forgotten Realms are more anathema to one another in the themes.


----------



## Logan (Mar 23, 2005)

I can sum up everything I hate about Dragonlance in two simple words:

        Tinker Gnomes.


----------



## Turanil (Mar 23, 2005)

When I run again a D&D campaign (if I ever do it), it will be in the Dragonlance setting. Otherwise it will be a heavily houseruled d20 Grim Tales campaign set in Warhammer's Old World. For me, DL is perfect for a traditional, as per the rules, D&D campaign. I will nonetheless do a few alterations to the stories, so it will look like a cross between War of the Lance and Age of Mortals. But no need to rewrite the setting for that.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Mar 23, 2005)

Logan said:
			
		

> I can sum up everything I hate about Dragonlance in two simple words:
> 
> Tinker Gnomes.





Butwhywouldyoueverhatesuchlovablecreativecreaturesthattalkamill...oh, sorry. I love the tinker gnomes. They make me laugh.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 23, 2005)

I love Tinker Gnomes, like Kender, enjoyed the initial Chronicles, hate the Next Gen cast and novels, and very much like the d20 products.

I also hate Planescape, so that maybe means I'm a DL fan?


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 23, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Butwhywouldyoueverhatesuchlovablecreativecreaturesthattalkamill...oh, sorry. I love the tinker gnomes. They make me laugh.




I think that's the problem, same with kender.  You have a serious and dreadful world, and these two races are crammed up it's ass to provide comic relief.  They are the square peg hammered into the round hole of Dragonlance.

Oh, and I did not like the Chronicals books, they read like a "paint by numbers" fantasy book, so dry and lifeless.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 23, 2005)

Logan said:
			
		

> I can sum up everything I hate about Dragonlance in two simple words:
> 
> Tinker Gnomes.



Meh. For some reasons I am more interested about tinker gnomes than I am about the other archetypal gnomes (garden gnomes with red pointy hats). Can't really hate them.

However, I'm not fond of gully dwarves.


----------



## Draco Paladin (Mar 23, 2005)

It's obvious from my screen name that I love Dragonlance. For all it's worth,  But I feel that something's gone seriously wrong with the setting.

Unlike many people though, I don't really hate the concept of multiple cataclysms and the strange things like Tinker Gnomes, Kender, etc. I've always felt that a lot of the things people hate about Dragonlance are ideas that could have been brilliantly executed.

Problem is, execution's been spotty. Too many of the novels, stories, and accessories were written by hacks who don't seem to care enough about Krynn to even get their facts straight or even use proper English grammar. And even the top writers of the setting have had their off moments. 

Dragonlance now resembles the fascinating, rambling, eclectic mess that is the Forgotten Realms. I find the Realms interesting. But the appeal of Krynn has always been its distinct, focused character.

Because of this, Dragonlance hasn't been aging gracefully. And I've become more and more jaded about the world over the years. The Sovereign Press books are relatively good, and do a decent job of trying to tie up the loose ends and fixing the worse errors of judgment. But the books are a good tune-up for something that I feel is due for an overhaul.

I'm all for an 'Ultimate Dragonlance', in the spirit of Marvel's Ultimate comic book line. Maybe the rumored upcoming Dragonlance movie can be the vehicle for that.

The constellations of the Platinum Dragon (Bahamut, Paladine, Draco Paladin) and the Chromatic Dragon (Tiamat, Takhisis, Draco Cerebus) have disappeared forever from Krynn's night sky.

But there is a world where these stars still shine in the heavens. A universe where, like the Dragonlance I fell in love with 20 years ago, the mysterious gods, scheming dragons, terrible cataclysms, and savage wars blaze and rage with terrible glory. It's a planet where elves also sequester themselves in an ancient forest kingdom. Where gnomes create technological wonders.

It's Eberron. Part of me feels it's Dragonlance Done Right. (But with orcs and drow and lycanthropes.) I know that's a hasty generalization. But it's a young setting, and feels like it's crafted with the loving care that went into early Dragonlance. I know people are trying to nurture Krynn back to health now, but I think I'll be spending my vacation in Eberron while Krynn heals.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 23, 2005)

Draco Paladin said:
			
		

> Dragonlance now resembles the fascinating, rambling, eclectic mess that is the Forgotten Realms. I find the Realms interesting. But the appeal of Krynn has always been its distinct, focused character.



Sometimes it can too distinct, too focused. It's like with Middle-Earth, some gamers don't think they can get as much enjoyment from playing in the setting because they will always be second-rate to guys like Aragorn and Gandalf.

No matter what, everyone have different ways of looking at the world from their own angle. Even a franchise as good as _Dragonlance_ is bound to have mediocre tales that will never rate to the epic ones.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 23, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> What does it need?  Let's say there was no limit to what the current designers could do to improve the setting, what would you recommend?



Just that only Sovereing Press would get to continue with the setting. They've made wonderful work already and I hope they continue on the path. And I hope they would get to remake the DLCS their way. WotC should stay 500 miles away from anything Dragonlance. Their editors seem to not know anything at all about the setting.



			
				BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I also thought the last trilogy was neat. The most memorable moment was when Tanis realizes that the gods never left and that the entire planet was orbiting a different star. I didn't see that coming and I probably should have.



You do realize those are two different instances from two different trilogies you've merged together. 



			
				shaylon said:
			
		

> When I read Dawning of a New Age, by Jean Rabe, she did me in.  In the first chapter or two, she sets up Maelstryx, and then in one short paragraph, she fast forwards 30 years. 30 years?  It just stuck a negative in my mind.



That was because she had been told to set the story 30 years into the then future. The summary of 'earlier events' was deemed necessary, but I do admit it could have been done better.



			
				shaylon said:
			
		

> As far as this post goes, I realize I talked a lot about the novels that were written and little about the game, but my position is this: With Dragonlance, the novels are crucial to understanding and playing the campaign. The world (at least the supported world, Ansalon) is small enough that the major players of the books come into play early and often in a campaign. I didn't like the way the novels played out, so I couldn't see playing in a campaign and having to deal with Mina and the rest of the butchered characters from the setting.



I must heartily disagree. The novels play a crucial part only if the DM thinks they do. They are potential fluff for the setting, but you don't need them to play there. I'd go so far as to say that a DM who had only the new SP sourcebooks would do perfectly fine. And any player who uses novel information to try and 'outplay' the DM should realize that it's the DMs world he is playing in, not the novel authors. Oh were you relying on the Heroes of the Lance to save the day? Well oops, they were killed last week. Think killing Ariakas stops the war? Well would you look at that, he wasn't the one in charge after all. Trying to use the Disks of Mishakal to save the day? Didn't you know they were fakes? 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> As has already been mentioned, the 5th age novels by Jean Rabe were some of the worst novels written for the series (certainly by far the worst Dragonlance novels that I’ve ever read). The War of Souls helped this but by continuing to follow some of Rabe’s plot (instead of disregarding it entirely) I felt that Weiss and Hickman were limited in what they could do with the series.



That's an interesting view because it was Rabe who was limited in writing DoaNA because of the strict 'what you should have happen' guidelines she was given. I still thought that she managed to create an original and entertaining adventure. Yes, I like DoaNA.



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> One minor point is that I already have someone in my group who likes to play obnoxious gnomes. I'm pretty sure he would be overjoyed to play an even more obnoxious kender...



That's a player problem, not a setting problem. Kender and gnomes are obnoxious only if the player sets out to play them that way. Kender are not all crazy kleptos who don't understand the concequencies of their actions just like gnomes are not all goofy self-centered motormouths (there are already precedents of DL gnomes who've lived so long among other races that they have problems speaking in a 'gnomish' way).


----------



## diaglo (Mar 23, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think it's worthwhile to try. What the fans of it seem to love is by and large what I can't stand.
> 
> There are plenty of settings out there. No need to break what is obviously working for some folks in order to please folks who probably aren't going to respond to the effort.




ditto.

those who like it. like it for the reasons most of us avoid it.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 23, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?





yes,


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 23, 2005)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Oh, and I did not like the Chronicals books, they read like a "paint by numbers" fantasy book, so dry and lifeless.




I would not disagree that they were not the best work of the authors.  Dragons of Autumn Twlight, in particular, and its "spidery words of magic" was not exactly a work of literature.  It is wooden gaming fiction.

The later two books in the Chronicles, when they were not trying to rewrite their gaming sessions, got better.  But 20 millions copies  - the number sold that RA Salvatore notes in the current introduction to Amber and Ashes -  is still...20 million copies.

In defence of Hickman and Weis, the Chronicles was their first project and they were both very much new writers, still learning their craft.

The writing quality in their later works grows and matures.  The Weis writing in War of Souls is a lady who is no longer a beginning novelist, but is a master of her craft.  I wish they had both had  that experience & developed talent then that they do now.

No matter how you slice it though - nothing succeeds like success.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 23, 2005)

I agree.  The problem I had and still have with DL is that the world seems to be about the major stories.  I mean the WHOLE world seems to be about these stories.

You can't have an adventure during the time of the War of the Lance without it being entirely about the war.  Players will suddenly start seeking out characters from the novels or they will start feeling substandard because while they are saving small town #242, the heroes of the lance are busy returning gods and dragons to the world and saving everyone on the planet.

It's lame to run through the characters as the heroes of the lance, it's been done too many times before.

Try to run in a different time period, and what do you have?  Before the war of the lance: No clerical magic, thus no healing and preventing players from playing some of the major classes in the PHB.  Either that or twisting history and the setting so that it isn't DL anymore.  After?  If you want to fit in with the novels and such, somehow everyone casts spells without gods or magic.  So...basically, either you have a campaign having to do with the dragon lords and their oppression...or you run a generic fanatasy game with no real flavour that says "This is DL"

There is always something BIG going on that overshadows anything the heroes of the game might do.  I submit that the heroes of DL are even MORE important than those of FR.  In the FR at least you can say "Cultists of Bhaal strike in the North, stopped by Drizz't.  The most powerful demon in the Abyss tried to take over the world, stopped by Elminister.  And the great undiscovered dungeon of <insert name here> was plundered and a great unknown evil stopped by the party."  It feels like there is so much evil, so many plots that the world still NEEDS more heroes as the ones that exist can't be everywhere at once.

In DL, the world is so focused around the events at the time that anything like a dungeon crawl or a simple, non-world spanning adventure feels out of place in the world and feels unimportant.


----------



## HellHound (Mar 23, 2005)

For me, it would have to involve going back in time and getting rid of the original DL modules.

I don't play D&D much, I DM.

The one campaign I played in was the original DL modules. I was the only person in the group who hadn't read the books. The modules were railroading in the extreme, and the players around me just made it worse because they insisted that everything run exactly as in the books.

Damn near made me quit playing RPGs completely.

It -DID- chase me away from AD&D.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Mar 23, 2005)

I don't want the publishers to do anything with Dragonlance.  I have lots of settings to choose from that I like.  As Steel_Wind points out Sovereign Press is selling out their print runs and doing second printings.  Obviously they are doing just fine.  Dragonlance and I parted company a long time ago - I wish it (and its fans) well but I see no need to invest in yet another campaign setting (especially one that has such bad memories for me).


----------



## Snotlord (Mar 23, 2005)

I have wanted to buy a proper DL gaming product for almost 20 years now, but have not yet been published as far as I am concerned. I want the War of the Lance era in a nice hardcover with maps and Elmore-only artwork. 

I looked at the 3e setting. I did not like the artwork and it had too much white space (or rather huge borders). I could have accepted that (and I liked the Diablo books, so I am a forgiving guy!), but the killing blow as all the changes that followed the first books was included in the setting (Chaos Wars?).

Maybe I'm unfair. Maybe Chaos Wars is ultra cool, I never gave it a chance, but the first and only Dragonlance book I'm gonna buy is a War of the Lance book Setting I can treat as a static setting.
 :\


----------



## possum (Mar 23, 2005)

Personally, I love Dragonlance and most of it's creations.  I am however, not all that interested in the War of Souls.

As an owner of several Dragonlance books and two game products, I have to feel that the campaign setting does a great job.

As for the issue of Dragonlance revolving around the novels' main characters, all campaign settings with a large amount of novels suffer from this.


----------



## Dragonmarked DM (Mar 23, 2005)

Though I'm not a huge DL fan, I do enjoy some of the flavor of the setting. One of my all time favorite box sets was however the Taladas books. Their was something about taladas (and the whole book of fluff that came with the box set) that sparked my DM imagination. To this day I dream of returning to the lost conintent.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 23, 2005)

Stop the fiction.

That's it.

It's a fairly interesting setting, but more so than the Forgotten Realms even, this setting gets the snot kicked out of it on a regular basis and the authors never make any apologies for it.


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 23, 2005)

I love Dragonlance. It was reading the Chronicles novels that brought me into D&D in the mid-late 80's. Same that other than the Chronicles and Legends trilogies, the other DL novels have been for the most part awful (IMO).

The setting is great high fantasy, based on the balance of good-neutrality-evil, more RP based than perhaps most others, and has a certain unique quality that I can't quite put my finger on. 

I do wish with all my heart that the Chaos War/5th Age had never happened. If I could change just one thing, it would be that.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Mar 23, 2005)

My problem with DL stems mostly from the novels.  How many apocalyptic events can one setting have?!?!  It got tiresome.  Plus, once you factor in the range of quality from good (none of them were great) to outright crap, it made it hard to really invest anything into the setting.  

As for as the games go, all the pre-D20 incarnations were railroading.  The PC's were second fiddle to the supposed genius of W&H's characters.   The D20 edition of the setting does a good job.  I don't think DL has the absolute best presentation out there, but the setting is finally written in a way that is truly fosters ideas that aren't tied to the god-awful metaplot attached to DL.  I don't plan on using the DL D20 material for anything more than mining for my homebrew setting, since it's simply standard fantasy.  DL finally is of decent quality, but it's not even close to the best of the fantasy settings.  I've moved into more of a Eberron and Iron Kingdoms mindset anymore, so standard fantasy doesn't really hold all that much appeal to me anymore.

Kane


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes, the chronicle of DL is well known.  The first attempt at a really coherent setting, one with something like a real history and pantheon vs. the more adhoc WG and latter FR. And it was an alternate setting, with slightly different takes on a lot of things. Back at the dawn of time these where big things. But the mods where bad and they kept blowing the world up, destroying the settings coherence, which was its main advantage. (as an aside, they also did blow up WG and FR, it was a bad habit TSR got into).

But is the setting unpopular? The most most hated setting is FR. The most like setting is FR...what this means is not that people are crazy but that FR is the best known. DL is a close 2nd (even WG as the default just sort of fades into the background).  And it is much better to be hated by many and known by more, then to have a tiny, adoring fan base--at least if you want to sell game books. 

Soveriegn Press just needs to keep up the good work, and be glad the setting is so wel known.


----------



## qstor (Mar 23, 2005)

I like Greyhawk, Dragonlance and the Realms equally. I guess I'm an anomoly 

I've tried to play or run DL but most people didn't seem to be too interested unless they were into the novels a lot.

Mike


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 23, 2005)

It's always really interesting to me to hear about the reasons people like or dislike Dragonlance. I can identify with a lot of it, too. Writing for the setting has been challenging not only because you have to write what the fans expect to see, based on the events and characters and themes of the novels, but what they don't expect to see (and wouldn't know what it is until they see it). We include a lot of small things, many little adventure hooks or NPCs or drop-in concepts in between the larger stuff. The recent War of the Lance hardcover campaign sourcebook is crammed to the gills with it.

I really enjoy the setting, and I playtest as much of what I write and design for it in a regular campaign. I think it's in real good shape now, under Margaret's direction and Jamie's leadership, and I do encourage anybody who hasn't already taken a look to give it a once-over. Even if you're not so keen on the setting itself, these books are packed with stuff you can use in another campaign, so everybody wins. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## twofalls (Mar 23, 2005)

I've read the Chronicles Novels, the first three books and really enjoyed them. That was a long time ago, and when I heard that Wizards was going to redo Dragonlance as D20 I became excited to try to run the modules I purchased years ago. The game fell apart, just like evey other game I've run with the Dragonlance modules from 1e. They lead the players about by the nose too much, and my style is more free form.

The Wizards Dragonlance Core book sucks rocks. Its poorly organized, I didn't care for the writing, and there is a lot of missing information. They didn't even offer stats for a Hoopak! Not that its hard to come up with your own stats, but my god, how can you even discuss Kender and not come up with a Hoopak?

Someone earlier said that they liked Tinker Gnomes... well I'm glad someone did. One silly race is a bit much for me, three silly races damages the setting (Kender, Gully Dwarves, Tinker Gnomes...) to the point that I feel like I'm running the Toon RPG not a serious epic setting. 

I might have still become interested in the setting in spite of all of this, however learning about the next world shattering threat to come out in the 4th age, then another in the 5th age... I can only digest so many world shattering threats in a given setting, and DL has more than overdone this theme.

Now thier Sovereign Stone game... THATS a fun setting... but I won't hijack this thread.


----------



## Estlor (Mar 23, 2005)

The novels really are the problem with the Dragonlance setting.  The setting is chock full of great ideas and neat spins on standard things that work really well in the pages of fiction but less well as codified RPG rules.  For example, saying, "There are no gods anymore, divine magic doesn't work," is a fabulous plot hook to start unraveling (which is precisely what the foundation of the War of the Lance was), but it makes for difficult gaming if you're trying to play before or concurrent with the Chronicles.  The presence of reliable healing is a large portion of how challenge ratings are determined.  If you take away divine magic and the ability to turn undead, every monster becomes tougher and undead become nearly unstoppable.

If there was some way to divorce the setting and its flavor from the novels and their mechanics, it could be possible to transform Dragonlance into something playable.  As it stands, however, doing something like that would strip much of what Dragonlance is out of the setting, making it nothing more than a half-full bag of rules for plundering.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 23, 2005)

Like a lot of people, I read and enjoyed the first couple trilogies (in my youth), then read and did _not_ enjoy a few more Dragonlance books beyond that.

I had already stopped playing D&D by that time though -- an old friend loved the original Chronicles and pestered me until I read them -- so I never played through any of the (in)famous modules.

Thus, I have no interest in the vast history of Krynn through its many cataclysms.  I'd just like to be able to play through the original adventure series, updated to be less of a railroad.


----------



## Garnfellow (Mar 23, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I noticed poor old DL mentioned an awful lot on the "Least Favorite Setting" thread, so I'm curious as to whether or not those who have played it and disliked it have any recommendations on how to make it more appealing to today's gamers?




I think your question is a little analagous to "How can Verne Troyer become a great NBA player." It's not a question of effort, or resources, or dedication.

Fundamentally, at its very core, the Dragonlance setting is a pastiche of elements done much better by other settings. It's Tolkien without the majesty. It's Greyhawk without the nostalgia.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 23, 2005)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I think your question is a little analagous to "How can Verne Troyer become a great NBA player."



No it isn't.  Game designers can't just make Vern Troyer into a 6'5" NBA all-star by simply writing it on a page.  They _can_ however mold the Dragonlance setting into the best version of itself, depending, of course, on what they and fans think the "best" version is.  That's what I'm curious to see different people's points of view on.

Is the "D&D with More Dragons" contrast to Greyhawk even relevant or necessary any more?  *Can* Dragonlance overhaul itself?  Does it need to?  Would a setting of cool dragonriding organizations and Tolkienesque adventure be better off without, say, the Heroes of the Lance, or such a focus on one tiny continent, or something else that has always been a part of DL, perhaps to the setting's detriment?

In Eberron, the aftermath of a great war is the fertile ground in which everybody adventures.  It isn't about whoever the NPC's in that great war were, nobody really much knows and no one cares.

Is that what Dragonlance needs?  A separation of PC's from anything related to the novels?  A greater focus on the time in between the wars and cataclysms?  A timeline that *never* advances after a certain point, so canon lovers will never be overshadowed or overwritten by events from future novels?

Again, just curious as to what other people, particularly those who find DL too lacking to play in, think on the matter.  The responses thus far have been very interesting.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 23, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I noticed poor old DL mentioned an awful lot on the "Least Favorite Setting" thread, so I'm curious as to whether or not those who have played it and disliked it have any recommendations on how to make it more appealing to today's gamers?
> 
> What does it need?  Let's say there was no limit to what the current designers could do to improve the setting, what would you recommend?



A few things, for me at least:

- drop the metaplot, hard and fast. One big overriding story doesn't do the players any favors.
- kill the novel line immediately. As others have mentioned above, the relentless push of the storyline(s) and major characters isn't conducive to a good gaming world; which leads to:
- stop fricken' changing things. How many ages have there been? And the constant 'blowing up' of the world? Screw that.

However, as a few others have said, it's a lost cause, IMO. Too little, too late.


----------



## rogueattorney (Mar 23, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?




No.  I thought they were complete junk.

To answer the original question, as others have said, the makers of DL couldn't do anything to the setting that would make me want to buy it without alienating their long time fans.  It simply wouldn't be worth it to them to try.

R.A.


----------



## Belen (Mar 23, 2005)

The setting needs to be driven away from the novels.  Everytime I look at Dragonlance, I think about the books.  I just cannot come up with a story line for it.

On the other hand, I LOVE to pull things from the setting.  I have pulled the magic and mage orders, and the Knights of Solamnia into my homebrew.

Dave


----------



## Belen (Mar 23, 2005)

Oh!  Publish a bit more often may help.  New books for DL come out at a glacial pace.  By the time the next one arrives, I have lost interest.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 23, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Try to run in a different time period, and what do you have?  Before the war of the lance: No clerical magic, thus no healing and preventing players from playing some of the major classes in the PHB.  Either that or twisting history and the setting so that it isn't DL anymore.




I was going to disagree with you but I'm not sure I can.  See, I run a DL-based game where I rewrote the history prior to the War of Souls and ignored everything past the first chapter of the 5th Age/SAGA book (Chaos came back, gods retreated).  It *is* Dragonlance.  But...it's not.  99% of the stuff in the DLA and TotD is correct and that  last 1% is evenly split between my changes and conflicts within the books.  I have kender, tinker gnomes, big scary dragons, etc but.....it doesn't quite feel like Dragonlance anymore.  I can't say it ever did really.  

The fact is that DL always has a bit of the railroad feel to it so the big events can happen.  Take that away and it doesn't quite feel like DL anymore.  Not bad.  Just...different.  Probably better.  From what I've heard that's why the DLd20 stuff's done so well; less railroading and a "softer" focus on the events at large.  That's hearsay though.  I don't own the books because my 3E DL game's been running since 2001 and there's no way I'm going to Ret-Con the whole campaign.  




> In DL, the world is so focused around the events at the time that anything like a dungeon crawl or a simple, non-world spanning adventure feels out of place in the world and feels unimportant.




This, I think, is up to the DM.  Set a game on Taladas and most of the Ansaloni events are rather unimportant.  The islands north of the Istar are equally isolated and insulated.  The big dwarven fortresses kept their doors closed for most of recent history so entire campaigns can be based there with little intrusion from the outside world.  Same goes for a lot of the Elven lands.  (I always wanted to start a campaign during the War where the PCs are elves, defending the forest during the evacuation.  The PCs finally set sail but wind up being the group of ships that were blown to Taladas.  The war becomes utterly irrelevant though still a major factor in the group's thinking.)

Even within Solamnia it varies with the local acceptance of the tales.  Leave the areas where the war hit or that weren't visited by any of the Heroes and have at best an elderly Knight of Solamnia and you'll have a different experience.  "Suuuuure, I can believe that Majere fellow split the Whitestone with a lance.  Oh, yeah.  Betcha it was just spring thaw that shattered it, don'cha know."


----------



## Logan (Mar 23, 2005)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> I think that's the problem, same with kender.  You have a serious and dreadful world, and these two races are crammed up it's ass to provide comic relief.  They are the square peg hammered into the round hole of Dragonlance.




Yes, that's it exactly.  Well, that and the fact I like my settings "grim and pseudo-Medevial"
(you know, what the middle ages really were not but everyone thinks they were)
Tinker gnomes, with their elevators and steams enignes, really take me for a loop, and don't get me started on their ships..........


----------



## Garnfellow (Mar 23, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No it isn't.  Game designers can't just make Vern Troyer into a 6'5" NBA all-star by simply writing it on a page.  They _can_ however mold the Dragonlance setting into the best version of itself, depending, of course, on what they and fans think the "best" version is.  That's what I'm curious to see different people's points of view on.




What makes you think you haven't /already/ seen the best version of Dragonlance -- and that version still wasn't good enough to convert the unbelievers? 

It's not like TSR and WotC haven't thrown some of the best designers, artists, and editors in the business at this setting. And it isn't like the various Dragonlance teams haven't tried to shake things up . . . they must be on, what, their sixth cataclysm or so? 

I don't think there are "Six Simple Things That Would Fix Dragonlance Once and for All Time" because the problems or limitations are inherent with the setting in all incarnations, just as Vern Troyer's 2' 8" height is fundamentally inherent to him. Suddenly adding githyanki or cybernetics or more dragons won't fix Dragonlance, nor will killing off all the Kender and Tinker Gnomes (however desirable I might find this might to be). 

As plenty of other folks have already pointed out, the things that make one person love Krynn are the very same things that make other people hate Krynn.

So to me, it’s not like Dragonlance is a marginal case, where it just needs a couple of nips here, and few tucks there, and the BAM! 80% of the haters out there see the light. I think you would have to, for all intents and purposes, destroy the setting in order to appease the critics. So why bother? Maybe the very best thing to do with the setting is provide MORE of everything that the fans love and the detractors hate. More Kender! Double Tinker Gnomes! Three novels a month!


----------



## Narfellus (Mar 23, 2005)

Eh, I'll pipe in. I read the Chronicles and Legends when i was a kid and loved them. Really really liked em. Even read alot of the spin off sequels but all paled to the first 6 books. Quit reading them for a long long time because the setting didn't quite do it for me. It didn't beg me to "PLAY ME" or "RUN ME" like FR did at the time (i've since quit playing FR too, but that's another story). 

As someone else mentioned, the scope of DL is all about the War and Gods and Dragons. Anything outside this scope by lower level characters seems pointless. My favorite setting now is Midnight, and i'm drawing some comparisons. There's a major war here too. A continent spanning war where the good guys are on the decline. I suppose the whole gist of Midnight automatically put the PC's into the plotline in some fashion, but the difference (to me) is that there aren't novels for comparisons. There aren't well known Fizbans or Heroes of the Lance fighting Takhisis. There's no sense of humor or solace in Midnight. The built-in war of Midnight is bleak with a probably bleak conclusion but the heroes, no matter how small, become VASTLY important in their war against the shadow. 

I haven't seen the d20 conversion of DL but from what i've read here it sounds interesting. But i wouldn't get it. I just don't have time to run it, not when there are 10 others setttings that want to be played first (like Conan!)


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 23, 2005)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> It's not like TSR and WotC haven't thrown some of the best designers, artists, and editors in the business at this setting. And it isn't like the various Dragonlance teams haven't tried to shake things up . . . they must be on, what, their sixth cataclysm or so?




Okay, here's the part I think is becoming a little widespread and overemphasized for no apparent reason.

When the game line started back in 1984, it was set in a post-Cataclysm world, 350 years after the gods dropped a comet on the Kingpriest of Istar and left. So, that's one.

When the game line was doing poorly and the novels weren't really working out too well (or for whatever reason), Tracy and Margaret worked together with TSR and wrote Dragons of a Summer Flame, and that was the Chaos War. Widespread event, yes. When did this occur? 1996. Twelve years later.

And so, they introduced a new game line set after that event, with a new game system, and it did tolerably well and has many ardent fans. It suffered towards the end and TSR moved it into dual-stat for AD&D, but eventually when WOTC bought TSR the decision was made to cap the SAGA period off with another event and bring back many of the classic features fans were missing. That happened in 2001.

Currently the setting is enjoying a renewed surge of interest and is open to various eras of play, from the current post-War of Souls time period to the War of the Lance or back further than that. The gaming line supports a range of fan interest.

With all of this, the idea that Dragonlance is just constant change and destruction and rebooting and so on is a stretch, to me. It changes with every edition of the game, much like popular settings such as the Realms do. I don't see the frequency of upset that others do, I suppose.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 23, 2005)

I would agree that some DL novels are really good and some are really bad. I don't read much of the current storyline stuff so I'm not an authority on that. But some of my recent reads include the following:

- The Kingpriest Trilogy: Awesome! Tells the story of Istar up to and including the Cataclysm. An absolutely excellent read with a wealth of background material and ideas for DMs and players alike. The story provides a lot of info on what happened to the Towers of High Sorcery. It also ties in nicely with the original Chronicles (e.g. showing how Fistandantilus' spellbook and the Disks of Mishakal got to Xak Tsaroth).

- The Ergoth Trilogy: Another excellent series. Although a different style than the Kingpriest Trilogy, this series describes the ancient, pre-Cataclysm nation of Ergoth and really nails down the byzantine nature of court intrigue at the time. This is a pretty much stand-alone series, with no other DL knowledge necessary to enjoy it.

- The Chronicles: though I haven't reread these recently, I plan to soon. What more can I say, the story that started it all!

- The Elven Nations Trilogy: another must-read for any DL DM. The story provides a wealth of information about the founding of the different elven nations. Also ties in with Ergoth.

- The Icewall Trilogy: written by Niles, these are excellently written novels that explore the history of Icewall in a very interesting way. It provided the basis for an entire campaign story-arc that took our campaign into the depths of the Icereach to the ogre undercity of Winterheim.

As you can see, I prefer reading about DL's history as opposed to the current storyline (which just doesn't do it for me). A lot of the one-shot novels that I've read, to be honest, haven't been very good. It seems the trilogies are better thought out and explain a whole lot more. I can't begin to tell you how much my DL campaign has benefitted from reading these novels. I've read the original FR trilogy and they're a joke in comparison to the DL novels (I dunno what subsequent FR novels have been like). I highly recommend that any DM running a DL campaign at the very least read up on novels that relate to whatever region/aspect of DL you plan to run.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 23, 2005)

A quick note on the eccentricities of DL (e.g. tinker gnomes, kender, the Heroes of the Lance, dragons, etc.). A lot of people get all caught up in these aspects of DL and "can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak. In my 3-4 year running DL campaign, the party has yet to meet a tinker gnome. And kender have been encountered in isolated incidents. The party has never met any of the Heroes of the Lance and those characters have had zero direct impact on the party. The only person of prominence they have met and interacted with was Dalamar. Yes, dragons are a theme of DL. But that's to be expected and the party seems to enjoy encountering dragons of all different colours (but, even then, fighting dragons has been rare). The party has had only minor encounters with draconians to date (though that will change soon!).

My point is that DL is not the stereotypes that some people seem to think it is. The world is what you make of it. The worst is people who say they don't want to be railroaded by playing the Heroes of the Lance. C'mon folks, that was like 20 years ago. DL has moved so far beyond that, yet people still can't seem to see past it. The only railroading that's going on is players and DMs who can't seem to function without the gaming company railroading them adventures and campaign rules. Make it up!!! Make DL your own world!!! Take what you like and leave the rest!!! That's what creativity and RPGs are all about!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 23, 2005)

Personally, I like Dragonlance for the simple fact that it doesn't (or didn't) bow to RPG conventions.

Dragonlance is, by and large, "about" the Heroes of the Lance, their triumphs and tragedies, their essentially preset adventure and the interesting things that happened along the way.

It's the ancestor of Final Fantasy and the descendent of the Lord of the Rings, not the descendent of Greyhawk and the ancestor of Eberron.  Player-created PCs don't drive its world - regardless of their actions, Raistlin still fights Fistandantalus, Terra is still the only half-esper, Frodo still carries the ring.  It's not (or wasn't) terribly apologetic about this.

Pen n' paper RPGs aren't a terribly good medium for this kind of entertainment.  But they are a versatile medium, and they're big enough to encompass it.  Some - I daresay many, considering the consistent success of Dragonlance - people enjoy exploring a storyline or acting on its periphery.

I'll never understand why devotees of standard pen 'n' paper RPGs wish ill upon this alternative.

Now, the actual setting of Dragonlance and the progression of its particular metaplot don't greatly interest me, so it's not one of my favorite settings.  I just respect its willingness to defy What An RPG Is - and the fact that its defiance birthed a wonderful related genre in electronic games, which a good medium for it.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2005)

IMHO, the problem with DL as an RPG setting, for me, is the same suffered by Star Wars and LotR: the largest, most important, most epic story ever for these settings have already been told. Whatever the PCs do, they'll always be second bananas to Raistlin, Luke or Aragorn.

Also, this whole "second Cataclysm" and new departure of the gods just cheapened the original story. It's like writing a new LotR trilogy where Sauron forged *another* Ring...


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 23, 2005)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> What makes you think you haven't /already/ seen the best version of Dragonlance -- and that version still wasn't good enough to convert the unbelievers?



Well, to put it bluntly, because its a known fact that your statement isn't true.  A number of "unbelievers" have announced right here that they jumped on board, or _back_ on board of Dragonlance gaming as a result of the new 3.5 edition by Sovereign Press.

This thread is about what more it would take for the rest to give it a try.

For the record, I think that the current incarnation of DL as a game setting is the best yet, but even my group has tinkered with some of the official "canon" to better suit our particular tastes.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 23, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'll never understand why devotees of standard pen 'n' paper RPGs wish ill upon this alternative.



I don't think some gamers wish ill upon this, it is just that trying to copy that style. As I said before -- and many posters laters -- it's kinda hard to run typical adventures without feeling unimportant in that world. Even a GM could hardly churn up a legendary adventure of similar _DL Novel_ quality every month.

Other gamers truly don't care, as long as they got to "live" in the world, it doesn't matter if they're making a contribution to it, though at certain point later in the campaign (reaching high-level) they would want to.

For the few _Dragonlance_ GMs that can duplicate the "novel" feel in their campaign, I salute them.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 24, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Dragonlance is, by and large, "about" the Heroes of the Lance, their triumphs and tragedies, their essentially preset adventure and the interesting things that happened along the way.




Ugh. That is so fundamentally NOT TRUE that I don't know where to begin. DL has NOT been about the Heroes of the Lance since the classic series so long ago. They haven't even re-created 3E versions of the original series. Yet people STILL think that it's all about Tanis and Raistlin and Sturm, etc., etc., etc. It's not. And it hasn't been for quite some time. Any real DL fan would know that.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Mar 24, 2005)

Unfortunately, what brought the spark back to Dragonlance for me was the SAGA System and the Fifth Age--a fun new system to play around with, dragons that were back to being _dragons_, and a setting that felt more open and flexible than DL had ever been.  Most of that, though, was repudiated by fans and has been plowed under or denigrated in the past few years.  What I've heard of the post-WoS era has failed to appeal to me, and my gaming dollars are spread thinly enough that I'm reluctant to pick up even the products for the eras I _do_ care about.

   Plus, the more I delve into the moral and philosophical underpinnings of DL, the more problems I find with them.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2005)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Plus, the more I delve into the moral and philosophical underpinnings of DL, the more problems I find with them.



Heh, I still find that its a cool enough setting after houseruling that the official "gods" aren't really gods and the metallic dragons only pretend to be good....


----------



## M.L. Martin (Mar 24, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Heh, I still find that its a cool enough setting after houseruling that the official "gods" aren't really gods and the metallic dragons only pretend to be good....




   Please get out of my head.  

   [Anti-Canon mode engaged]
   (And I think there are actually a handful of truly good metallic dragons--Silvara, Sunrise, and Mirror come to mind.  Most of them, though, are rotten to the core, as can be seen by them handing their eggs over to the Dark Queen out of greed and spite at their patriarch barring them from the world . . . Ack, got to hide from the Renegade Hunters again.)

   Matthew L. Martin


----------



## Sarellion (Mar 24, 2005)

Huh?

I thought they were stolen.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Mar 24, 2005)

Sarellion said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> I thought they were stolen.




   They were.  I was posting some of my ideas from the 'Anti-Canon' I've been working on.  I'll edit the post to make that clearer.


----------



## Thanee (Mar 24, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I noticed poor old DL mentioned an awful lot on the "Least Favorite Setting" thread, so I'm curious as to whether or not those who have played it and disliked it have any recommendations on how to make it more appealing to today's gamers?




I don't really like Dragonlance as a setting, tho I do not have anything against DL in general, it just doesn't work well as a setting, because the background is too fixed through the novels.

It's kinda like Middle Earth, which also makes not the most sense to play in, because of the epic story told in the novels. If you play there, you want to be part of that story, not just do something, which has no relation to it, but if you become part of it, you have no freedom in your actions anymore, since the outcome of everything is already given.

Basically any setting based on an epic fantasy story doesn't really work well for a role playing game, IMHO.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 24, 2005)

Despite whatever happens, Dragonlance will ALWAYS be about the Heroes of the Lance.  Someone's game might be 1000 years before the original module, 1000 years after, the world can be remade dozens of times over, and it will ALWAYS be about the Heroes in most people's eyes.  Middle Earth games are always going to over shadowed by the War of the Ring.  These are events that define the worlds, and nothing can ever change that.

I'm going to chime in with the others who said they felt unimportant in Dragonlance.  There's just to many high level NPCs, to many important events done by the heroes in novels.  It's a hard taste to wash out of your mouth.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Mar 24, 2005)

Dragonmarked DM said:
			
		

> Though I'm not a huge DL fan, I do enjoy some of the flavor of the setting. One of my all time favorite box sets was however the Taladas books. Their was something about taladas (and the whole book of fluff that came with the box set) that sparked my DM imagination. To this day I dream of returning to the lost conintent.




I don't have much use for Ansalon, but Taladas is one of my top three settings. I was happy to see Gnomes finally added to the world of Krynn.


----------



## ssampier (Mar 24, 2005)

I'm strange. I haven't read of the novels. My brother tried to get me to read the novels, but I wasn't interested.

My relatives want to play in Dragon Lance, but no one wanted to be the DM. I was willing even though I was DL clueless. As a result, we created our own continent, away from the existing "meta-plot" of the DL saga. We had a blast adding the DL elements of gods, moons, tinker gnomes, kender and minotaurs. It's not DL by the book, but was loads of fun.

I even purchased the 3.5 DLCS because of that campaign.


----------



## caudor (Mar 24, 2005)

Estlor said:
			
		

> The presence of reliable healing is a large portion of how challenge ratings are determined.  If you take away divine magic and the ability to turn undead, every monster becomes tougher and undead become nearly unstoppable.
> 
> If there was some way to divorce the setting and its flavor from the novels and their mechanics, it could be possible to transform Dragonlance into something playable.  As it stands, however, doing something like that would strip much of what Dragonlance is out of the setting, making it nothing more than a half-full bag of rules for plundering.




My thoughts exactly.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Mar 24, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Different pantheons, organizations, or anything else?  A *complete* overhaul and rewriting of the War of the Lance in gaming form in the tradition Marvel's "Ultimate" comic books?
> 
> What does it need?  Let's say there was no limit to what the current designers could do to improve the setting, what would you recommend?




No limit?  In that case, I could probably revive the setting (by my standards, of course).

Plunge the land into a dark age, reducing the communications abilities to a more medieval level.  Remove the Wizards of High Sorcery entirely, leaving their ruins as magical locations with strange, Lovecraftian horrors.  Reduce the black-and-white setting assumptions, more by taking Law from Good's bed (and Chaos from Evil's) than by removing the Good vs. Evil concept that is fundamental to the setting.  Remove the assumption of monolithic evil, replacing it with a more powerful but less cohesive collection of evil organizations (helped by the technology reduction and reduced good vs. evil focus).

Keep at least one region (ideally a continent) free from the influence of the authors.

Remove the gully dwarves, tinker gnomes, kender, and draconians -- possibly replacing the last with another draconic race (with a nod to the setting name) that isn't so tied to the current metallic/chromatic dragon system.  Replace said metallic/chromatic system with more interesting dragon types, probably one that does not restrict individual dragon alignments and outlooks so much*.  Keep the excellent production values of the Sovereign Stone 3.5 books.

Rip out the pantheon completely, replacing it with a more creative one.

* If anyone's interested, I have more specific recommendations here.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 24, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Ugh. That is so fundamentally NOT TRUE that I don't know where to begin. DL has NOT been about the Heroes of the Lance since the classic series so long ago. They haven't even re-created 3E versions of the original series. Yet people STILL think that it's all about Tanis and Raistlin and Sturm, etc., etc., etc. It's not. And it hasn't been for quite some time. Any real DL fan would know that.




And I haven't been a real DL fan since it stopped being about the Heroes of the Lance.  

I already said that the particular metaplot of the setting didn't interest me all that much.


----------



## Eva of Sirrion (Mar 24, 2005)

For those who feel restricted or tied back by what's gone on in the novels, I'd suggest picking up the current setting book and running from the current time.  Pretty much all the major plot elements have been resolved and now things are fairly open to your characters to make their names known and presence felt.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Mar 24, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> A quick note on the eccentricities of DL (e.g. tinker gnomes, kender, the Heroes of the Lance, dragons, etc.). A lot of people get all caught up in these aspects of DL and "can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak. In my 3-4 year running DL campaign, the party has yet to meet a tinker gnome. And kender have been encountered in isolated incidents. The party has never met any of the Heroes of the Lance and those characters have had zero direct impact on the party. The only person of prominence they have met and interacted with was Dalamar. Yes, dragons are a theme of DL. But that's to be expected and the party seems to enjoy encountering dragons of all different colours (but, even then, fighting dragons has been rare). The party has had only minor encounters with draconians to date (though that will change soon!).
> 
> My point is that DL is not the stereotypes that some people seem to think it is. The world is what you make of it. The worst is people who say they don't want to be railroaded by playing the Heroes of the Lance. C'mon folks, that was like 20 years ago. DL has moved so far beyond that, yet people still can't seem to see past it. The only railroading that's going on is players and DMs who can't seem to function without the gaming company railroading them adventures and campaign rules. Make it up!!! Make DL your own world!!! Take what you like and leave the rest!!! That's what creativity and RPGs are all about!




But all those stereotypes ARE Dragonlance. Without the annoying joke races, and the 'heroes', etc, it would just be a generic fantasy setting.

Geoff.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Mar 24, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> What does it need?  Let's say there was no limit to what the current designers could do to improve the setting, what would you recommend?



I hate to be Mr. Super Negative, but there really isn't _anything_ they could do to get me to like it, and still have it be Dragonlance. There's a lot of DL fans out there, and for them the setting works fine. I have other choices.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Mar 24, 2005)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> But all those stereotypes ARE Dragonlance. Without the annoying joke races, and the 'heroes', etc, it would just be a generic fantasy setting.




So... what you're saying is that it's beyond hope?


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 24, 2005)

I was turned off of DL so early on I don't have a clue as to what half of you are talking about. I'm not even sure if there were novels before I cursed the name of DL. The work seemed really good and the modules top notch. I'd buy them and reuse them for something else with no problem. What turned me off on DL were Kender and the other wacky races as well as the early railroading of the modules that had use trying to kill the main heroes as they showed up to save the day. As others have pointed out, a setting is what you make of it, however, If you don't use the wacky races and various NPCs that make up a great deal of what DL is about, what point is there of using that setting over another? I bought the 1E hardcover book and read it. It was pretty good and had lots of neat ideas, however, everybody that actually wanted to play a DL game, did so so they could play up the elements I hated the most. If you ever made an "Ultimate DL" version, you'd just end up with another generic setting that lost the old fans and would be rejected by the new. So ya, DL is beyond hope as far as a quick fix goes.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 24, 2005)

I hated 5th Age SAGA.....but personally I've been thinking that Sovereign Stone has been doing an awesome job with some of the recent books.  It was a shaky start with the 5th Age sourcebook, though I really liked the DLCS.  Both the monster book, and the Wizards of High Sorcery book were quite good.  I picked up War of the Lance, but haven't read through it yet.

I'd love to see a "Races of" type book, kind of like Races of Faerun.  And a new sourcebook to update Taladas to 3E.  That was such a great campaign setting....I'd love an update on it.  What is the kingdom of Thenol doing?  What happened to the Rainward Isles?  What about the Minotaur League?  Tonnes of cool stuff to look into.

Oh, and don't let them blow up the planet anymore....just have regular-style adventures campaigns for a long time, that don't involve massive updates to the setting, all the gods leaving and coming back etc.  After a point, it starts to stretch credulity.

I'd say fewer kender and tinker gnomes, but when it comes down to it, that's a personal choice, and I acknowledge that many people like those races.  I just don't feature them very heavily when I run Dragonlance.  But Knights of Solamnia, Minotaurs, Irda, Qualinesti and Silvanesti are very popular.

A few inconsistencies I'd love to see resolved and/or things changed:

1-Elven lifespans.  DL was written as a setting in 1st Ed. when elves lived 2000 years.  Throughout the written histories of the world, many of the elves who are mentioned (Sithas, Sithel, Kith-Kanan, etc.) lived upwards of 1500-2000 years.  Yet for 2nd and 3rd Ed. DL elves have basically used the core rules...which is an average span of 550.

2-Elves should be taller.  In all the original adventures they elves were tall, like 6' area...Porthios, Laurana, and Gilthanas were all tall.  But again, in 2nd and 3rd Ed. DL was set to the default, so now the tallest ones were 5'5", and Laurana, at 5'6", was an absolute mutant, as an example.

3-I'd love to see some form of prestige class for Irda changer adepts and changer savants.

4-Either some rules, or plotline, or something, where the Ogre Titans become permanent...or at least some of them don't need the potions etc. to keep their powers.

5-Nzunta.

6-The population figures for Ansalon in the 5th Age sourcebook seem to low for the size of land.  But this is a somewhat common problem in fantasy settings.  Eberron and Midnight have the same problem, I think.

7-Inclusion of useful mechanics to assist in roleplaying the more "down-to-earth" nature of the setting.  Heroes get frightened of creatures like dragons and undead and such.  I would think that fear or horror rules, like what were used in the old Ravenloft setting might assist with this.

8-Bring back Taladas.  Time of the Dragon was an awesome box....I'd *so* go for a 3E adaptation.

9-The Minotaurs should be tougher.  I think the DLCS really stripped them down to bare bones to make them playable at lvl 1.  Maybe it's just because I'm a DM, and don't have to worry about playing characters from level 1, but I just find it takes away from how dangerous they feel.

10-Clarify the whole WoHS can only use a staff or dagger thing.  It doesn't work very well with 3E, or even standard DL in 2nd and 1st Ed. where you had fighter/wizards.  Is a fighter/mage a renegade to be hunted down and killed for using a sword?  Does he just get regarded with stares of exasperation by his brother magi?  Or does the rule only apply to single-classed wizards?

Anyways, those are some of the things on my wish list.  Admittedly, I'm not playing or running the setting at the moment, but I have been starting to pick up several of the 3E rulebooks for it, and I've really liked what you guys are doing.  Seems to get better with every one.


Banshee


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 24, 2005)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Ack, got to hide from the Renegade Hunters again.




You can relax. We really aren't out to get you. Seriously.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 24, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> They just did this. It was called the War of Souls.  Seeing it was the third great coflict, I can do without a fourth anytime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree.  This argument captures some of the strengths *and* weaknesses of both Dragonlance and Planescape.

So DL characters shouldn't be going to the Abyss.  And have a LE Greater goddess living in the Abyss, which is chaotic evil.  Planar travel isn't supposed to be allowed.

And for 99.9% of the population, it isn't.  But Planewalkers are, by nature, exceptional.  From a planar's perspective, it is prime-plane hooey that people can't get to the planes from Krynn.  And Takhisis living in the "Abyss" is a misunderstanding.  So it is possible to visit.

They're not incompatible...it just depends on whose viewpoint you're looking at it from.

Personally, my Planescape campaign featured a major plotline whereby the Knights of Takhisis who had survived the battle with Chaos, but been trapped in the Abyss when Takhisis stole the world, found their way onto the planes, and tried to take over the Harmonium from within.  It was a pretty successful campaign, too.

Banshee


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 24, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> You can relax. We really aren't out to get you. Seriously.




We aren't?    


I guess I've remained silent for long enough on this thread.

I think we can agree that Dragonlance is a setting that has a good following, but is not appealing to everyone.  You can say that about any setting, really.

Kai Lord's question wasn't "Why do you dislike Dragonlance?"  Rather, he asked how Dragonlance could be improved, and how it could be more appealing to a broader audience.

That's a tough question.  Unfortunately, it does have some past history and setting elements that have turned the setting off to some people (i.e. races, SAGA rules/Fifth Age, etc.).

Now, I do think there are steps being taken in the right direction.

Firstly, the novels are going in a new direction.  The setting is fresh again, and some of the plot elements of the past that loomed over the setting are gone (i.e. Heroes of the Lance as well as the battle between Paladine and Takhisis).

Second, the game line.  Sovereign Press has done an amazing job with Dragonlance.  I've often felt that TSR made some poor choices where DL was concerned.  Why they put out _Otherlands_ rather than sourcebooks on more well-established elements of the setting is beyond me.  Sovereign Press has done an excellent job, with sourcebooks such as _Towers of High Sorcery_ and _War of the Lance_.

If there ever was a time to get into DL beyond when it originally came out, now is it.

How could it be better still?

The game world needs to be set up so that players can adventure and not fear messing with the overreaching plot, or meeting up with a novel character.

The characters need to be in the spotlight.  _Key of Destiny_ does good with this, as this module series puts the player characters in the spotlight and they are having an impact on the world.  More of this would be good.  Perhaps with a Living Dragonlance game?

Also, I think that having some good support for showing alternate ways of portraying the so-called "annoying" races might be good as well.  Many people already have a formulated opinion, but it would be good to see some alternates that may be more appealing.  A person may not like a true kender.  Would he be more inclined to play an afflicted kender?  Maybe a player who dislikes tinker gnomes would get a kick out of a mad gnome.

Plus, how cool is Nightshade Pricklypear?  Kudos to Margaret Weis for putting a kender nightstalker in _Amber and Ashes_.


So there's some thoughts from me on what's going right, and where things might get better still.  

How can Dragonlance be more appealing to you guys, while still keeping it Dragonlance?


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 24, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So DL characters shouldn't be going to the Abyss.  And have a LE Greater goddess living in the Abyss, which is chaotic evil.




Krynn only has three outer planes - the Abyss (evil, and negative energy plane), the Dome of Creation (good, and positive energy plane) and the Hidden Vale (neutral, and source of the elemental planes). Each is vast and mutable, containing many aspected realms specific to each deity, but considered to be within one alignment-centred plane.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 24, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Krynn only has three outer planes - the Abyss (evil, and negative energy plane), the Dome of Creation (good, and positive energy plane) and the Hidden Vale (neutral, and source of the elemental planes). Each is vast and mutable, containing many aspected realms specific to each deity, but considered to be within one alignment-centred plane.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Did not several modules feature both the Ethereal and Astral planes as well?  Then there's the Gray, or whatever it's called, where the Huldrefolk live..

The point I was getting at was that from the perspective of a native of Krynn, there are only 3 planes.  But that's not to say that in a Planescape campaign, planars don't know differently .

But, the thread's about DL, not PS, so I won't go any further than that.

Banshee


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 24, 2005)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> How can Dragonlance be more appealing to you guys, while still keeping it Dragonlance?




For me, I don't think you can. While I do buy the d20 books to mine the great stuff from for my homebrew, Dragonlance just wouldn't be Dragonlance without Kender, Tinker Gnomes, etc. All those things that make Dragonlance different just plain don't appeal to me, and without them...well, without them, why not just play FR or Greyhawk or my homebrew?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Mar 24, 2005)

The setting may be fresh now, but a lot of what has drawn gamers to DL over the years is the rich history.  There may be very little metaplot now, but all that's left is a standard fantasy setting that has little to grab new players' attention.  Take a look at some of the new settings coming out.  IK, Black Company, Conan, and Eberron isn't standard fantasy.  Talislanta (while not a new setting, but it is new to D20 and will be new to many gamers) isn't standard fantasy either.  These worlds have something new and interesting than just the same old world filled with sterotypical dwarves, elves, and monsters.  Dl would have to reinvent itself again, which it one of the problems I've had with the _novels_, so I don't really think that would be a good idea.  

DL is selling well, but I don't think there's much that can be done to really draw in new people without turning off the one's that are already fans.  

Kane


----------



## beaver1024 (Mar 24, 2005)

I loved the old DL but the setting is getting dated with quite a number of internal consistency problems. I bought the DLCS and Age of Mortals and I stopped buying. 

One of the most jaring aspects of D20 DL is the retconning of the structure of the gods and magic. The introduction of Chaos in Dragons of Summer Flame and the subsequent 5th age materials took away what was really fun about DL and just made it an ordinary generic fantasy setting.

Setting wise they need to resolve internal consistency problems with high sorcery vs renegades vs sorcerers. The air of tension that they started with wizards vs sorcerers is great but the setting explanation on why their magic is different is incomplete. It also doesn't help the attitude of the main proponents in the struggle change their minds about the other side with each source book released (eg the gods of magic's position on ambient magic).

It seems to me that that the great new storylines started by the War of Souls isn't being followed through. In my mind I would imagine that the return of the gods shouldn't be as smooth as it is now. SVP should play up all the moral quandries this would bring. I would love to see cabals of WoHS wizards questioning whether they're really wizards or clerics. Or rebellious anti-gods Solamnic Knights taking arms against the followers of the so called return gods.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 24, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Heh, I still find that its a cool enough setting after houseruling that the official "gods" aren't really gods and the metallic dragons only pretend to be good....




Heh.  Seems there's several of us non-canon types out there. While my metallic dragons are still good and chromatic dragons are evil they don't have to stay that way. Good dragons can become evil chromatics and vice versa.  Mwah-ha-ha!  Of course, that's because Sargonnis is Paladine and vice versa.  I still block planar travel though; it helps with my meta-plot.  

From the sound of it, those of us who meddle with DL are fine with the overall story but want to tweak the setting.  We're a small minority.  The hate-its have either had most of their issues resolved (i.e. rail-roading) or will never have them resolved (kender-haters.)  It'll take a leap of faith by the former to find that out and the latter are never going to jump on board.  Other than continuing to garner fan support there's nothing you can do to encourage people to take a leap of faith.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 24, 2005)

Is "railroading" more prominent in just _DL_ campaign setting alone?

Maybe we need a DM book that teaches how to railroad a campaign without letting the players know, especially when it has to do with prophecies-type, event-driven, story-based adventures.


----------



## Ibram (Mar 24, 2005)

Though I wouldnt say I "Hated" DL its just not the setting for me.  Nothing they could do can change that, except completly reworking the setting (at which point it wouldnt be DL anymore anyway).


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 24, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Is "railroading" more prominent in just _DL_ campaign setting alone?




Nope. The only time that DL was railroady was in the original module series. The setting bu itself isn't at all. Some people think that the novels add to that aspect when they don't. All the novels do is tell a story about X characters. What your characters do is just as important to the setting they just don't get novels written about them.



> Maybe we need a DM book that teaches how to railroad a campaign without letting the players know, especially when it has to do with prophecies-type, event-driven, story-based adventures.




Oh dear Lord, no thankyou. Not even in jest.


----------



## MetalBard (Mar 24, 2005)

The way Dragonlance is written there is no room for heroes to make their mark.  All the big events are reserved for the novels or the NPCs.  That is the major problem with Dragonlance.  I like playing it now because we have DM who's going a little off the beaten path and the new d20 books partially rectify the above problem.

Other problem - Kender and all other sterotype races in Dragonlance.  In order to be of good alignment you have to let Kender get away with theft.  I've never understood why a group would keep a Kender around.  They are the worst character race ever imagined because they create too much useless in-party conflict or aggravation.  

Tinker gnomes are alright, but they have a problem that Kender have as well.  Every single Kender or Tinker Gnome acts exactly like every other one.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 24, 2005)

MetalBard said:
			
		

> The way Dragonlance is written there is no room for heroes to make their mark.  All the big events are reserved for the novels or the NPCs.  That is the major problem with Dragonlance.




No, that is the major problem faced by people who can't come up with their own storyline ideas. That's like saying nothing significant can happen in the FR or GH until a novel is written about it. Our campaign has never had a problem with the PCs being the heroes of prominence.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 24, 2005)

MetalBard said:
			
		

> Tinker gnomes are alright, but they have a problem that Kender have as well.  Every single Kender or Tinker Gnome acts exactly like every other one.




We dealt with that a few different ways IMC.  First, the "stereotype" is for the 1st level "teenager" equivalent of the race.  They are immature and haven't really come into their own right as individuals.  By the same token elves are flighty but snooty, dwarves are gruff and snooty ("if it's nae dwarven, it's crap!"), and humans are almost completely unpredictable and emotional.  

After a bit of aging each of them settles down and only reverts to that mode when stressed, excited, or immersed in their native culture.  Kender still have problems with shiny things sticking to their hands but put stuff back when they realize they've got it.  Gnomes speak like rational creatures and don't try to add rocket-powered rollerskates to horses except when bored.  Elves can not look down on people and dwarves can make friends.  

Lastly, variant cultures.  The races aren't the same in all parts of the world.  The DLA is highly focused on Solamnia.  Pick up the the Taladas "Time of the Dragon" box set or PDF from RPGNow and see the paranoid kender, functional gnomes, and shamanic elves.  A little cultural cross-polination can do a world of good.


----------



## rowport (Mar 24, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?



You are not.  I read the original series, and loathed them- I only kept reading because a friend assured me that they would grow on me as I 'knew the characters better.'  Seriously, they are really bad books.   :\


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2005)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Please get out of my head.
> 
> [Anti-Canon mode engaged]
> (And I think there are actually a handful of truly good metallic dragons--Silvara, Sunrise, and Mirror come to mind.



Agreed, but in my campaign, dragons who become good transform into what we call "Ascended Griffons."  Huge, awesome griffons that can go toe-to-toe with dragons and are ridden by heroes of good (...on "wings of eagles") 

Silvara was the first to make the change.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 25, 2005)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Nope. The only time that DL was railroady was in the original module series. The setting bu itself isn't at all. Some people think that the novels add to that aspect when they don't. All the novels do is tell a story about X characters. What your characters do is just as important to the setting they just don't get novels written about them.



Wow. I have never heard this kind of criticism back in the mid-80's, during their initial release and introduction of _Dragonlance._

So fast-forward 20 years, you don't want more of that kind in adventure modules published today?

P.S. Don't let *diaglo* know, but I'm beginning to relate to those innocent days behind us.


----------



## Kalendraf (Mar 25, 2005)

For a campaign setting, I avoid anything "over-developed" and to me Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are both examples of it.  Those settings have too many novels written.  If I even attempted to play, I'd have players that are more knowledgeable than the DM, and they would likely throw a fit about something being non-canon if I stepped the least bit out of bounds.  Such a setting is just too constricting for my style.

I realize some novels have been published for Greyhawk, but those are nowhere near as abundant as the ones for FR or DL.  Thus, I don't feel nearly so boxed in trying to run GH.  I'd happily run in the Scarred Lands for the same reason.

So for me, it all boils down to this...  A setting is either made for novels *OR* for campaign play.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 25, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Maybe we need a DM book that teaches how to railroad a campaign without letting the players know, especially when it has to do with prophecies-type, event-driven, story-based adventures.




That would actually be quite valuable.

Skillful railroading can make for a wonderful campaign with a compelling story and a place for every PC in the party.

Clumsy railroading, which, unfortunately, includes the original DL modules, leads to trainwrecks.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 25, 2005)

My only coppers to add here are that I don't like Krynn to play in (but love Taladas). However, the d20 DL books ARE top notch looking, and I give props to the d20 DL team.  The books are darn nice, keep 'em coming (even if I'm not a customer buying)


----------



## Kalendraf (Mar 25, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?




You're definitely not alone in that regard.  I read them because there was a certain cool-ness about having novels available based somewhat on D&D.  However, I never really enjoyed them that much.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 25, 2005)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> For a campaign setting, I avoid anything "over-developed" and to me Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are both examples of it.  Those settings have too many novels written.  If I even attempted to play, I'd have players that are more knowledgeable than the DM, and they would likely throw a fit about something being non-canon if I stepped the least bit out of bounds.  Such a setting is just too constricting for my style.



Not unless you tell your players beforehand -- as a ground rule -- that this is YOUR _Forgotten Realms,_ not Ed Greenwood's. I mean we are all thankful for the truckloads of his campaign notes so that it will be easier for us DM, but it doesn't mean you're running his or WotC's or TSR's version. Make it your campaign.

For example, I don't give a doof's ass about the presence of firearms in Faerun. Those weapons do not exist in my Faerun.




			
				Kalendraf said:
			
		

> I realize some novels have been published for Greyhawk, but those are nowhere near as abundant as the ones for FR or DL.  Thus, I don't feel nearly so boxed in trying to run GH.  I'd happily run in the Scarred Lands for the same reason.



Meh. Then perhaps you should thank WotC for their current level of support for _Greyhawk._ However, _GH_ fans think WotC should do more.




			
				Kalendraf said:
			
		

> So for me, it all boils down to this...  A setting is either made for novels *OR* for campaign play.



Before the novels came out, it was Ed Greenwood's homebrewed campaign setting he played. He didn't think it was set out to be a setting for a novel.

I'm certain that TSR didn't plan for _Dragonlance_ as a setting made for the novels, any more than _Star Wars_ is a universe not fit for gameplay but for the films and TV series.

IOW, I disagree. As long you don't overthink and overanalyze all of this, all of them can be good game worlds to play in.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Mar 25, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who read the novels and didn't like them?



 I liked the first Trilogy to a point.  It was interesting to me at the time.  I had just gotten into reading fantasy, so I was pretty new to the whole genre.  The characters were OK and the story was alright (though it annoyed me that they glossed over parts that seemed integral to the story).  However, now that I've read some really good fantasy and my personal tastes in fantasy literature have changed, I don't really like the original trilogy at all.  It's too bland, but it was always just good enough to make me think the series would get better.  (I quit reading DL after "Dragons of Summer Flame".)  As for the rest of the series, the book on Lord Soth (was it titled "Lord Soth"?) is the only one that holds any place in my heart.  

Kane


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 25, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm certain that TSR didn't plan for _Dragonlance_ as a setting made for the novels, any more than _Star Wars_ is a universe not fit for gameplay but for the films and TV series.




In fact, the novels were meant to support the game.  Funny how that one worked out.  


One thing I've noticed on this thread is that a lot of people mentioned that they liked playing in Taladas the best.  Perhaps one way of making Dragonlance more appealing to players is by developing Taladas further, and present it as an alternative to Ansalon.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 25, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Is "railroading" more prominent in just _DL_ campaign setting alone?
> 
> Maybe we need a DM book that teaches how to railroad a campaign without letting the players know, especially when it has to do with prophecies-type, event-driven, story-based adventures.




The trick is how obvious the railroading is   Sometimes a little railroading is necessary....otherwise players have a nasty habit of completely missing the cool encounters you spent hours preparing etc.

I think people resent DL because of the influence of Chronicles and the Companions.  There's a certain perception that nothing can be done outside of what they did.  I don't see why, though.  I ran successful DL campaigns for several years that had nothing to do with the companions.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 25, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> No, that is the major problem faced by people who can't come up with their own storyline ideas. That's like saying nothing significant can happen in the FR or GH until a novel is written about it. Our campaign has never had a problem with the PCs being the heroes of prominence.




I agree.  In my campaign, the characters solved an ancient prophecy and saved the world in a climactic battle....and none of the PCs were named Tanis, Sturm, Caramon, or Raistlin.

All you have to be willing to do is step away from what's been written.  My main problem with DL back in the day was the extremely limited amount of material that TSR released that *didn't* have anything to do with the War of the Lance, and the Companions.  Otherlands, several of the modules, including the elven module trilogy, and Time of the Dragon were all very cool.  But there wasn't enough of that type of stuff.

I think DL has as much chance for adventure as FR....and it's less hyper-powered as well.

Banshee


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 25, 2005)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> One thing I've noticed on this thread is that a lot of people mentioned that they liked playing in Taladas the best.  Perhaps one way of making Dragonlance more appealing to players is by developing Taladas further, and present it as an alternative to Ansalon.



Lucky for them. I've been trying to ask that _Kara-Tur_ be an alternative to Faerun.   

Perhaps the timing is ripe for Taladas to be presented, since that part of the world is obscure and lesser known. Besides, I've been wanting to play a toga-wearing Minotaur Senator.

You could always market _Dragonlance_ as a way to teach DMs how to be better storyteller in their job, especially the railroading schemes.


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 25, 2005)

Taladas is essentially a campaign setting in its own right, and although it shares many things in common with the core setting of Ansalon I think it has entirely different thematic and design goals. So, while it's cool that it's finally seeing some attention (beginning next month with the novel _Blades of the Tiger_ by Chris Pierson) I don't think it's the "Dragonlance solution" so to speak.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 25, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wow. I have never heard this kind of criticism back in the mid-80's, during their initial release and introduction of _Dragonlance._
> 
> So fast-forward 20 years, you don't want more of that kind in adventure modules published today?




If I understand you correctly, then no, I don't want more railroady modules.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 26, 2005)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Oh dear Lord, no thankyou. Not even in jest.



You prefer to run a non-linear adventure, and let the players take you to what story they want to make, instead of you?   

You must be good at improv.


----------



## Gez (Mar 26, 2005)

Improving Dragonlance would require making Kenders, Tinker Gnomes, and Gully Dwarves into deep, interesting races. Interesting both from a metagaming standpoint (making them useful in an adventuring party) and from a roleplaying standpoint (providing real heroic archetypes for them, rather than poop-joke comic relief à la Jar Jar).

When the starting material you have features things named "Mount Nevermind" and races so irritating they are given a racial trait to model their annoyance factor, it's a Herculean feat to be able to turn that into semi-serious setting info.

Alternatively, keep gullinkerders as obnoxiously "comical" as they are, and give the rights to George Lucas. Jojo loves him some Gungan humour. He could make a sequel to the D&D movie with that. Snails would fit like a glove in a party with a kender and a tinker (and the dwarf was already a gully dwarf).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Mar 26, 2005)

Reworking DL into a playable setting would be more effort than just writing a new setting.  They'd need to disown about 150 novels...

DL's beyond help and in need of mercy-killing imo.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 26, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Taladas is essentially a campaign setting in its own right, and although it shares many things in common with the core setting of Ansalon I think it has entirely different thematic and design goals. So, while it's cool that it's finally seeing some attention (beginning next month with the novel _Blades of the Tiger_ by Chris Pierson) I don't think it's the "Dragonlance solution" so to speak.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I dunno, that's almost like saying "We found this paradise in South America, where's there's no crime, no pollution, and everyone gets along", and the first thing that comes out of the person in charges mouth is "Lets drill it for oil!"  I think pretty much everyone has a problem with DL feels the stuff wrong with the setting comes from the novels.  Starting a new novel line in a pristine and free part of the DL world is going to ruin what people like about it.

Right or wrong, when you have a novel written about where you are playing, the attitude changes to "unless we're playing with things like they are in the novel, we're playing wrong".


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 26, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> Improving Dragonlance would require making Kenders, Tinker Gnomes, and Gully Dwarves into deep, interesting races. Interesting both from a metagaming standpoint (making them useful in an adventuring party) and from a roleplaying standpoint (providing real heroic archetypes for them, rather than poop-joke comic relief à la Jar Jar).




How do you feel about afflicted kender and mad gnomes?


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 26, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You prefer to run a non-linear adventure, and let the players take you to what story they want to make, instead of you?
> 
> You must be good at improv.




If your're thinking of dungeon crawl modules, well, yes, I'll give you that.    Otherwise, sure I want the players to have a say as to where the action goes, not the author.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 26, 2005)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Taladas is essentially a campaign setting in its own right, and although it shares many things in common with the core setting of Ansalon I think it has entirely different thematic and design goals. So, while it's cool that it's finally seeing some attention (beginning next month with the novel _Blades of the Tiger_ by Chris Pierson) I don't think it's the "Dragonlance solution" so to speak.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



Taladas has always retained a pretty high level of respect among everyone I've talked to who knew about it.  The thread is about how to improve the line, and Taladas is part of the setting.  Many of us would be very eager to be able to visit it in 3E..

Banshee


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 26, 2005)

That would not be accurate. When Taladas was released, it bombed.  Sales were not good at all.

Over time, it gained some admiration and respect and popularity grew for Taladas. 

Problem is, the people who really like DragonLance?  Current cutomers? One whose money you have a reasonable chance of plying out of their pockets? 

Novels is what they want.  So that's what WotC is going to give them.  What novels get written and set where is not up to Sov Press - it's up to Wizard's publishing.  Margaret Weis can control what she's goingto write - but she is not a series editor and cannot control what others will do.

There is yet another land mass being investigated and explored now in the Linsha Majere trilogy (which I have not read). THe third novel in the series contains the map to the new area. 

The one thing on Krynn which is convenient about their continental land masses being so small. Always plenty of room for more, if that's your thing.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 26, 2005)

I'd like a DL campaign setting that allows me to play.

That is:
1/ a campaign setting that doesn't require from me to read the War of Souls or any other DL novels or any other era sourcebook.
2/ a campaign setting that isn't just a description of lands and rulers. I want campaign hooks. I want something exciting my imagination. Not the imagination of the authors enforced over mine. 
3/ I want a clear organization of this book, making it a usable resource. As it is the DLCS is not clearly organized, IMO.

And that's it. If you read my wishes carefully, you'll see that would basically ask an entire rewriting of the setting, in form and overall background feel.


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 27, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> And that's it. If you read my wishes carefully, you'll see that would basically ask an entire rewriting of the setting, in form and overall background feel.




Have you seen the _War of the Lance_ campaign sourcebook? Because I think it addresses a lot of these problems.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## scourger (Mar 27, 2005)

I thought about picking up the DLCS d20 book along with The Key of Destiny after downloading a free sample of the adventure.  I didn't because I realized that I have enough standard and non-standard fantasy d20 games to last me a lifetime of gaming.  I've got over 40 issues of Dungeon just for d20 now (I sold off about 40 for AD&D when I purged that system from my holdings a couple of months ago).  I've been running the Shackled City for 6 months and am still in the second adventure.  I also hold onto finishing the Judge Dredd d20 modules, running The Last Hero in Scandinavia linked to Mesopotamia, and maybe even running an all-jedi Star Wars game with just the core book and free WotC downloads (I've got to get some use out out of all those minis!); not to mention my core/Greyhawk campaing that has been on hiatus for 2-3 years now and a few other new products on the horizon that look intriguing.  There is just too much other material out there that I want to run for me to pick up DL for an epic campaing, as enticing as it is.  

After skimming this thread, I checked out dragonlance.com and the DL classics mdoules at rpgnow.com.  I read the original trilogy about 10 years ago and enjoyed it, althoug I recall little of it now.  The new Age of Mortals Campaign looks exciting, but it would require a lot of books.  In addition to the module, I need the PHB, DMG, MM & DLCS; and the Age of Mortals Sourcebook is recommended.  It's just too much information, money and weight.  There are about 10 DL d20 products on the schedule and only 2 of them are modules.  It should be about 4 modules, in my opinion.  One module for every sourcebook that gets released.  And they should not be delayed or spaced a year apart.  

I might be interested in a 3.5 update for the DL Classics Modules.  It's a little too much work for me to get them and convert them myself.  But buying them all for under $15 on 3 pdfs feels like more of a bargain than investing in the d20 epic.  I don't care if the modules railroad the players into the adventures.  I'm sure Bilbo Baggins felt railroaded in The Hobbit as did Frodo and almost everyone in The Lord of the Rings.  I would tend to think that those moduels are classic for a reason.  And they probably present all the "setting" information right in the modules.  

So, there are my answers to the question.  Little can be done at this point to get me into DL d20 since the opportunity cost is too high, but the buy-in could be cheaper.  A d20 update of the classic modules could be very cool (but again don't make it contingent on buying 1 or more setting books).


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 27, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Reworking DL into a playable setting would be more effort than just writing a new setting.  They'd need to disown about 150 novels...



Meh. I didn't like anything in the 5th Age, when _DL_ went _SAGA._ So, I ignore that period. Are they going to send a _DL_ police after me for ignoring novel canon? Puh-lease. I'd like to see *Dragonhelm* try and put the cuff on me.

 

Sighs. You guys are letting the novels dictate your own _DL_ campaign setting. DON'T. As with _Forgotten Realms,_ I firmly believe that a novel character should never be statted into a game character.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 27, 2005)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> If your're thinking of dungeon crawl modules, well, yes, I'll give you that.    Otherwise, sure I want the players to have a say as to where the action goes, not the author.



Even if the author is your DM?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 27, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. I didn't like anything in the 5th Age, when _DL_ went _SAGA._ So, I ignore that period. Are they going to send a _DL_ police after me for ignoring novel canon? Puh-lease. I'd like to see *Dragonhelm* try and put the cuff on me.




What, and take away the foremost supporter of Kara-Tur that I know?  I don't think so.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 27, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I'd like a DL campaign setting that allows me to play.
> 
> That is:
> 1/ a campaign setting that doesn't require from me to read the War of Souls or any other DL novels or any other era sourcebook.
> ...




If you looked at Sov Press' _War of the Lance_, you would see that every one of these requests - every one of them - is addressed by the book.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 27, 2005)

I love pretty much everything in DL, especially the Tinker Gnomes and the 5th age.


----------



## Gez (Mar 27, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I love pretty much everything in DL, especially the Tinker Gnomes and the 5th age.




Then this "Okay so you hate Dragonlance..." thread is _not_ for you! Begone!


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 27, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Even if the author is your DM?




I am my group's DM. 

A module should be self contained but should never force the players in a specific direction. It should try to guide but be flexible enough to allow players to dictate their own actions and come up with their own ways of dealing with problems.

I've not read all the original DL modules, probably only half and that was a looong time ago, but thats not how they read to me.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 27, 2005)

scourger said:
			
		

> Little can be done at this point to get me into DL d20 since the opportunity cost is too high, but the buy-in could be cheaper.




Well, that's not SP's fault. To blame them for you having to purchase the PH, DMG, and MM is silly (and with the SRD, you don't even need them). All you need to play DL is the core campaign book and that's it. If you want to play their modules then of course you'll have to buy them. If you want to play in the War of the Lance era then that sourcebook is recommended (but again not necessary as we played for years without it).

It just irks me when people who won't buy the d20 core D&D books start weighing in with negative things to say about d20 products. It's pretty clear from that choice that such people aren't the core consumers WotC (and probably SP) are catering to. Sheesh, if you can't buy the rulebooks then who cares if you don't like a company's products?

Look, if people don't want to buy DL b/c they have plenty of other gaming materials, fine - no problem. But you don't need to rationalize it by trying to say DL isn't good gaming material. Maybe it's just not for you. And the worst is people who still talk about railroading; they clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product...


----------



## scourger (Mar 27, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Well, that's not SP's fault. To blame them for you having to purchase the PH, DMG, and MM is silly (and with the SRD, you don't even need them). All you need to play DL is the core campaign book and that's it. If you want to play their modules then of course you'll have to buy them. If you want to play in the War of the Lance era then that sourcebook is recommended (but again not necessary as we played for years without it).
> 
> It just irks me when people who won't buy the d20 core D&D books start weighing in with negative things to say about d20 products. It's pretty clear from that choice that such people aren't the core consumers WotC (and probably SP) are catering to. Sheesh, if you can't buy the rulebooks then who cares if you don't like a company's products?
> 
> Look, if people don't want to buy DL b/c they have plenty of other gaming materials, fine - no problem. But you don't need to rationalize it by trying to say DL isn't good gaming material. Maybe it's just not for you. And the worst is people who still talk about railroading; they clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product...




You misundertsand me, or my summary is not clear.  Either way, I'll try to summarize my position more clearly.  The opportunity cost for me starts with the fact that I must forego playing several other games if I am to embrace running the new Dragonlance d20 adventures.  This cost is less about money than it is about time & effort.  I already own the core D&D books.  Financially, I can afford to buy any new product(s) I wish.  If I am going to play a module that requires 1 campaign setting book and recommends yet another sourcebook, then it has additional opportunity costs and must offer something different or otherwise worthwhile.  It at least means that I have to haul 5-6 books to the game table.  There is considerable time & effort to read 1-2 non-core books before getting to the adventure, especially ones jam-packed with new races, classes, skillls, feats, etc.  I have many standard fantasy options available to me already, so DL d20 doesn't really offer anything to prompt me to embrace it.  Perhaps I would if I had fewer other options.

None of this is the fault of any publisher.  I would likely pick up DL d20 before many other settings.  It does have the virtue of having at least one module and the promise of more to come.  The good news is that the planned epic DL d20 campaign could be my entire weekly gaming effort for a long time, but that fact is also part of its high opportunity cost.  I decided against it, but I like that fact that it is still available if I change my mind.  

I also view this thread as a chance to possbily influence the publisher.  I've been candid.  What would be more appealing to me is an update of the original modules, which I presume didn't and wouldn't require extra (non-core) books to run.  The time & effort for me to convert the original modules to 3.5 on my own is probably less than the time & effort to digest 1-2 new DL d20 books and then read the DL d20 module(s).  My effort is focused on running/playing the game, not mastering alternate fantasy rules; but maybe that's what DL d20 fans crave.  I don't buy the Forgotten Realms products for similar reasons.  I want to pick up a module and play as easily as possible.  

Some good things have come out of my effort on this thread.  First, I am looking at DL d20 again after it had dropped out of sight to me.  Second, I am reminded that they have a DL d20 DM screen--always a plus for me with a new campaign.  Third, I am intrigued by the original modules.  Perhaps they are worth a look.


----------



## Gez (Mar 27, 2005)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> How do you feel about afflicted kender and mad gnomes?




Not sure what they are exactly.

If they are, as you seem to imply, sane variants of their obnoxious counterparts, then why are they considered anomalies ("afflicted", "mad") rather than the rule they should be?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 27, 2005)

scourger said:
			
		

> This cost is less about money than it is about time & effort.




Ahhh, I see. I have the same problem. For some strange reason I'm still collecting Ravenloft materials even though I'm not running a Ravenloft game and probably won't be for quite some time. Maybe I'm planning ahead. Yeah, that's it...


----------



## scourger (Mar 27, 2005)

Yes.  A friend of mine describes it as an embarassment of riches.  If only there were more free time...


----------



## woodelf (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, in order to make it appeal to me:


lose gully dwarves
lose tinker gnomes
lose kender
better define irda so they aren't just ueber-elves

Really, that's about it. Those first three are what kept me from ever playing DL as a setting--and, among the literally hundreds of PCable races i allowed in my D&D game, those are probably the only 3 i never allowed. The rest of the elements of the setting are pretty cool, and i like a lot of the bits, especially during the war of the lance time period. It never particularly grabbed me, but, minus those three races, it'd at least be interesting. I'm not sure what it'd take to make it really jump out and grab me by the throat, but i suspect (1) it wouldn't be even vaguely recognizable as Dragonlance by the time you got there (based on the settings i *do* love), and (2) it'd involve not being tied so tightly to D&D3E mechanics. Frex, starting with the Iron Lore mechanics, from what i've heard about them, would be a vast improvement.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 27, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, in order to make it appeal to me:
> 
> 
> lose gully dwarves
> ...




So you are lookiing at deleting content to make it playable for you?

o_0

*poof* You are the DM.  They are deleted as if they had never been.

So... The only remaining complaint is about the Irda?  I have never involved  Irda in my campaigns directly at all, but...okay.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 27, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, in order to make it appeal to me:
> 
> 
> lose gully dwarves
> ...



You lose those and all you have is ... _Greyhawk 2.0._


----------



## Gez (Mar 27, 2005)

Makes me think I'm more likely to buy Greyhawk, be it 1.0 or 2.0, than Dragonlance...


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 28, 2005)

Well, I don't agree that DragonLance is defined by any of those three things - the setting is quite distinct without it (KoS, Knight of Takhisis/Neraka, ToHS)... 

I'm guessing the soul of the DL setting lies in Solamnia or Wayreth, not in Mount Nevermind.

Gnomes and Gully dwarves - even for those GMs that use them, are rarely PC races and serve only as foils and comedic moments in any campaign from time to time. 

But there might be one other teensy weensy factor in DL's favour:

DragonLance is actively supported with regular product releases. Seven DL gaming releases on the slate for this year alone. 

Total # of new Greyhawk publicaitions in your FLGS this 2005? 

That would be zero.

 'Nuff said.


----------



## jeff37923 (Mar 28, 2005)

So you want to get more people to buy the Sovereign Press _Dragonlance_ d20 setting books....

A few suggestions-
A) Have a race war in which the objective of the modules in the campaign is to exterminate every Kender, Gully Dwarf, and Tinker Gnome in the game. This will work as incentive for all of those who hate those races, to buy your new books. It will also be unique in that it will be one of the first deliberately genocidal campaigns ever made. (No, I'm not being an ass here, there is a lot of dislike for the above mentioned races - an extermination campaign would get those haters on your side, or at least their money in your pocket).
B) Declare a discount on all the already created _Dragonlance_ material, this will get any current product moving and get it into circulation where more of a player/customer base can be built. If there is any product, I don't know, I don't see a lot of it in game stores.
C) Destroy Krynn as we know it. Advance history about 10,000 years and rewrite the entire setting as something similar to WotC's _Urban Arcana _ for the d20 Modern system with appendixes for conversion to both d20 Past and d20 Future. The struggle for Krynn will still be ungoing, but will be fought in new eras.

These are all pretty radical suggestions, but then again, that's the point of this thread.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 28, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the soul of the DL setting lies in Solamnia or Wayreth, not in Mount Nevermind.



That is like saying the soul of Middle-Earth lies in Gondor, but the heart is in Hobbiton.   

So's Mount Nevermind.


----------



## talinthas (Mar 28, 2005)

hmm.  4 pages of thread and not a thing i can really say.  I love DL, so this isnt the place for me anyway.  Really, this setting is definately one you have to want to like to really enjoy.  For me, i like the metaplot, the religious overtones, the overt good vs evil, and the various strictly defined magics.  but no one would ever mistake my campaign for a 'canonical' DL game.  not with the Steampunk tinker gnomes working under the Ogre titans, or all the time travelling shadow dragons and glass sailors and crap.

It's very very possible to run a game that is "dragonlance' without having to be the official by the book 'dragonlance'.


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

MetalBard said:
			
		

> Tinker gnomes are alright, but they have a problem that Kender have as well. Every single Kender or Tinker Gnome acts exactly like every other one.




Is this really any more true than for elves, dwarves, etc., in most D&D settings? Or, for that matter, non-humans in most fantasy and scifi?


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> DragonLance is actively supported with regular product releases. Seven DL gaming releases on the slate for this year alone.
> 
> Total # of new Greyhawk publicaitions in your FLGS this 2005?
> 
> ...




Not necessarily. Once i've got enough to bring the setting to life, my biggest complaint about game lines (and that goes for setting lines, too), is releasess coming out faster than i can keep up. So, on this criteria alone, Greyhawk is preferable to me.


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Taladas has always retained a pretty high level of respect among everyone I've talked to who knew about it. The thread is about how to improve the line, and Taladas is part of the setting. Many of us would be very eager to be able to visit it in 3E..
> 
> Banshee






			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> That would not be accurate. When Taladas was released, it bombed.  Sales were not good at all.
> 
> Over time, it gained some admiration and respect and popularity grew for Taladas.




Also, by being significantly different from Ansalon, it probably doesn't appeal to hardcore DL fans as much, just as it might appeal more to people who atherwise aren't fans of DL. When the Taladas box came out, i didn't even give it a look, because it was DL. Now, years later, i'm trying to find a copy, because of everything i heard about it after the fact. 

On a similar note, while DL generally leaves me cold, i'd probably snap up a Taladas supplement, even if it was D20 System.  

So, i guess there _is_ one thing the current producers of DL could do to sway me: skip Ansalon and give me some Taladas. And put all the info in the RPG book, not in novels--i'm not willing to be 2nd class to the novel-readers, and i'm not gonna read a whole bunch of novels to glean a setting.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Mar 29, 2005)

Admittedly, there have been a number of "Tas clones" out there.  Howver, over the years, there have been the introduction of the Marak kender of Taladas, the afflicted kender (great for those who love D&D halflings), and there have been new character concepts such as the kender nightstalker.

Blister Nimblefingers (from the Dragons of a New Age trilogy) is an afflicted kender, and Nightshade Pricklypear (from Amber and Ashes) are two great examples of kender who aren't "Tas clones".

Plus, there's half-kender like Scrounger from Brothers in Arms.

Kender have come a long way, and I think you will see more differentiation still.

As far as tinker gnomes go, I'll concede that point to a degree, as many of them do act alike.  There are mad gnomes, but not enough examples of them.  Unfortunately, I have not read the book Conundrum, so I can't tell you either way on that one.


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I run a dreaded "alternate history" of Krynn set in the War of the Lance. That means the Chronicles never happened - and virtually everything that followed them never happened. It's my world - and I can do with it what I want. I pick and choose, plain and simple.
> 
> I think all DMs should do this - but for some reason - (probably because the DL Chronicles have sold 20 million copies and have rabid fans who want to recreate them) a LOT of DL fans and DMs cannot bring themselves to do this.
> 
> Small wonder there are those who dislike DL.  I'd hate it too if I had a crappy DM run FR Eberron or what have you for me too.




Interesting. Never ran into those folks. Back when DL was new, most of my gaming buddies and i read the first trilogy or two. And that was it. I bought the sourcebooks, but not the modules--but then, i've never really bought pre-written scenarios for any RPG. I never even bothered looking at the subsequent novels--the first two trilogies were good, maybe even great, but not good enough to merit buying subsequent books, and the library didn't have them. Why didn't we actually *play* DL? Two reasons, closely-related. First, everyone i knew played a homebrew setting. Even the one group i knew who nominally played in FR, pretty much used the map and that was about it. Secondly, DL just never grabbed any of us, especially as a settnig.



			
				Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Like someone else said, having read the novels makes a HUGE difference to the game. It adds a whole different level of depth to campaigns, especially once you really get to know the world. And there are a lot of really good new novels being published (I don't like the current timeline ones, but there are a lot that take place in earlier eras of play). DL is, IMHO, the most richly developed campaign world out there (in terms of fluff, rather than crunch).



 May be. I'm not gonna read a stack of novels to find out. Distill all that into a couple good-sized RPG books, without all the narrative and plot and characterization that go into a novel, and i'll eat them up. [It's actually one of my primary complaints with a *lot* of RPG settings: quit developing your setting through fiction, and give me gazeteers (or whatever you want to call them). I'm not interested in wading through a novel to get the setting info, even if it's a great novel; and even if i do, novels make lousy reference works when i want to look something up.]



			
				Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> One of the things that makes DL great is its uniqueness.



Agreed. However, it's just not *that* unique. At least for me, the uniqueness was what got my attention; the discovery that it actually wasn't all that unique was what turned me off. Well, the fairly vanillaness of thessetting, combined with the comic-relief races. I wanted something *more* unique. 



			
				Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> A quick note on the eccentricities of DL (e.g. tinker gnomes, kender, the Heroes of the Lance, dragons, etc.). A lot of people get all caught up in these aspects of DL and "can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak. In my 3-4 year running DL campaign, the party has yet to meet a tinker gnome. And kender have been encountered in isolated incidents. The party has never met any of the Heroes of the Lance and those characters have had zero direct impact on the party. The only person of prominence they have met and interacted with was Dalamar. Yes, dragons are a theme of DL. But that's to be expected and the party seems to enjoy encountering dragons of all different colours (but, even then, fighting dragons has been rare). The party has had only minor encounters with draconians to date (though that will change soon!).




 But at some point, what's the point? I mean, which elements *are* defining of  DL? How many of them can you change before it's just another fantasy setting. You can't have it both ways--either the setting is worthwhile because it's unique, or it's worthwhile because it's familiar. 

Anyway, i guess the DL setting never really grabbed me. It always seemed fairly vanilla, with a few twists, some of which i thought were really cool (the changes to magic), some of which a couldn't stand (the changes to races). Nonetheless, i *loved* the first two trilogies, and i actually think they're pretty good literature, not just good by game-fiction standards. But what made them good had precious little to do with the setting, and a great deal to do with the characters. There's a lot of good fiction out there that falls into the same category, IMHO. Frex, I would love to recapture what i love about _Blake's 7_, _VR5_, or _Firefly_ in an RPG campaign. But what i'd want to recapture would be the character interactions--the settings, in each case, are fairly non-remarkable. I think that's part of why DL falls down as a setting: people fall in love with the novels because of the character interactions, and putting different characters into the same setting just doesn't do it.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 29, 2005)

> beginning next month with the novel Blades of the Tiger by Chris Pierson) I don't think it's the "Dragonlance solution" so to speak.




     

This will be the first DL book I read since 1992.

w00t!


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Ugh. That is so fundamentally NOT TRUE that I don't know where to begin. DL has NOT been about the Heroes of the Lance since the classic series so long ago. They haven't even re-created 3E versions of the original series. Yet people STILL think that it's all about Tanis and Raistlin and Sturm, etc., etc., etc. It's not. And it hasn't been for quite some time. Any real DL fan would know that.




Maybe. But then this thread is about how to convert the un-converted. By definition, they aren't going to be "real fans", and won't be particularly familiar with the nuances. Also, i suspect that sales of the first two trilogies significantly dwarfs sales of any given later book, skewing general perspectives about the world.

Also, per my other post, i think it *is* all about Tanis and Raistlin and Sturm and Kitiara and so on--that is, IMHO, what makes them great literature is precisely the characters and their interactions.


----------



## woodelf (Mar 29, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You lose those and all you have is ... _Greyhawk 2.0._




Which was sort of my point, though i might've been unclear. Now, realistically, there are quite a few other defining elements of DL, such as the wizardry and knightly orders, the ongoing dragon wars, the relationships between magic and moons and gods and priests, and so on. But, for every element i like in the setting, there's at least one that's just as tightly tied that i don't like. And i suspect that (1) that's gonna be true for most people who aren't fans of DL but could be potentially converted (that is, they don't hate every single element of it), and (2) which are which varies enough that you couldn't easily change the setting and please more people than now.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 29, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Which was sort of my point, though i might've been unclear. Now, realistically, there are quite a few other defining elements of DL, such as the wizardry and knightly orders, the ongoing dragon wars, the relationships between magic and moons and gods and priests, and so on. But, for every element i like in the setting, there's at least one that's just as tightly tied that i don't like. And i suspect that (1) that's gonna be true for most people who aren't fans of DL but could be potentially converted (that is, they don't hate every single element of it), and (2) which are which varies enough that you couldn't easily change the setting and please more people than now.



Meh. _DL_ is just one of many settings out there. If you like it, support it. If you don't, find another (or create your own).

The thread starter wanted to make _DL_ more appealing and more attractive to more gamers so it is no longer the least attractive, but that is like trying to re-invent a longtime pop star into what many kids are into today: rap (much to my chagrin). Or worse, take a favorite sci-fi TV show and have professional wrestling superstars as guest stars to attract those kind of base audience.

In the end, it's all about flavor.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 29, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Look, if people don't want to buy DL b/c they have plenty of other gaming materials, fine - no problem. But you don't need to rationalize it by trying to say DL isn't good gaming material. Maybe it's just not for you. And the worst is people who still talk about railroading; they clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product...



Dude... are you just _refusing_ to pay attention? Maybe you need to be reacquainted with the thread title. Here it is: "Okay so you hate Dragonlance..." Of course people "clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product" - I thought that would have been glaringly obvious.

Look - it's all about perceptions. People who have been put off by the setting for whatever reason aren't going to "know the product" and certainly won't have "kept up on things"... why would they if they aren't impressed with Dragonlance? A quick cost/benefit analysis will quickly tell you that one isn't going to go back and research years of material, nor spend their precious time (not to mention hard-earned money) keeping up with something that they aren't interested in anymore (though, looking at your strange rant on the previous page shows me that you don't understand that concept...).


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Mar 29, 2005)

I am not sure if there is anything that could be done to get me to like Dragonlance.  I simply never liked the books or the setting. There were too many things that turned me off.  So whereas it has nothing to do with the TSR/WotC game designers end, I just could never get into it.  For instance, if someone told me they had the best recipie in the world for for squash, I would be unable to appreciate it as I don't really like squash.  Nothing against the cook, more like a bias against the vegetable.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 29, 2005)

...Don't try to Improve it! The setting's not going to appeal to everyone, it just never will. The reason I left it was 5th Age. Yes, it was an innovative system, yes they had talented people on it but that(5th Age) was the reason I left. 5th Age killed everything I loved about the setting.

At the time I was dang bitter until I realized that I had a ton of Greyhawk stuff I'd never used. Now, when it was announced that Sovereign Press was going to be doing 3.x stuff I got excited, until I picked up the core book and took it back to the store where I bought it. Dragonlance didn't translate well to 3.5 for me.

To play a rose knight you had to have a total of five classes and prestige classes. Geography wasn't the same, 5th age saw to that, Towers of High Sorcery were moved and I could list even more.

The point is that nothing could make me want to come back to Dragonlance. Go after those who never played in earlier editions; market it to new players of the new edition.

My two cents worth.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 29, 2005)

Some of my problems with Dragonlance.  Now, I'm not a big DL hater, but I do have a few problems with the setting, not fundamental ones (IMO), ones that a GM could house-rule away but probably to the horror of DL fans, but ones that need to be mentioned.

If steel is so valuable that it's used in place of gold as the main currency, why does everybody have so much steel equipment?  Orders full of knights in shining armor, swords, daggers, axes, chain mail all of steel.  If people in a typical D&D setting had as much suits of solid gold armor, solid gold weapons ect people would be assuming that gold was heavily devalued.

The whole "wizards aren't allowed to use anything other than a staff or dagger" thing.  It sounds like a very, very transparent bolting on of AD&D rules into novel setting.

Actually, the whole "3 orders of wizardry that all wizards belong to and must join or die when they reach 5th level" bit also puts me off a little.  A rebellious, independent Chaotic Neutral wizard would utterly insist that someone he found join the orders or die.  Highly chaotic characters who are loyal and dutiful members of a worldwide organization with strict and rigid regulations that must be obeyed to the death?  A Lawful Good wizard who finds a young mage who learned some basics from a dying old man and is largely self-taught from his notes and spellbooks is encountered off in the wilderness and told "you will come with me and join my organization or die!"  Hardly Lawful Good.  The entire "Orders of High Sorcery" seems like a Lawful Evil organization: Every wizard in the entire world must join on pain of death, and the entrance test itself is potentially fatal.


----------



## scourger (Mar 30, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> ...steel is so valuable...
> 
> ...wizards aren't allowed to use anything other than a staff or dagger...
> 
> ...3 orders of wizardry that all wizards belong to and must join or die when they reach 5th level....




Now that I'm reminded of these factes, I remember the few books I read and am more interested in the setting.  Funny.


----------



## tarchon (Mar 30, 2005)

The reason it never turned me on was that all the DL stuff I saw was built around characters from unbearably cheesy novels that I wasn't going to read just for the sake of understanding the setting. Too much assumed reference to the heroic deeds of super ultrapowerful Whoosits and Whatsisnames, who I'd never heard of, and their universe-shattering consequences. Of course that was like 15 years ago, and now the main reason is that there are a dozen other settings around now that people I (very occasionally) play with prefer.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 30, 2005)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> ...Don't try to Improve it! The setting's not going to appeal to everyone, it just never will. The reason I left it was 5th Age. Yes, it was an innovative system, yes they had talented people on it but that(5th Age) was the reason I left. 5th Age killed everything I loved about the setting.
> 
> At the time I was dang bitter until I realized that I had a ton of Greyhawk stuff I'd never used. Now, when it was announced that Sovereign Press was going to be doing 3.x stuff I got excited, until I picked up the core book and took it back to the store where I bought it. Dragonlance didn't translate well to 3.5 for me.
> 
> ...



Son of Thunder, if you had been interested in the stuff before 5th Age, you may wish to check out the DLCS, plus the War of the Lance sourcebook.  Both give you what you need to play before things got all messed up.  And the War of the Lance sourcebook has a prestige class for Knights of Solamnia that is one class instead of 5, doesn't have the mutated geography, has Towres of High Sorcery where they are supposed to be, etc.

Obviously, it's your choice.....but I wasn't sure if you'd seen the War of the Lance book or not.  Personally, I liked the DLCS, though not the Age of Mortals book so much.  But they've been doing a good job, and there's been some interesting stuff....the Bestiary, the Wizards of High Sorcery supplement, etc.

Banshee


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 30, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> If steel is so valuable that it's used in place of gold as the main currency, why does everybody have so much steel equipment?




This was, IMO, a temporary thing that should have been corrected in SAGA and later.  When things go horribly, horribly wrong people stop valuing crap like gold and diamonds and begin using food, water, and clothing as the base of wealth.  Once the economy gets big enough (aka recovers) for individuals to start being "wealthy" the use of consumables stops and other tokens (aka money) resumes.  Iron is a necessary commodity and has the disadvantage of decaying (rusting).  

The fact is that striking iron coins & ensuring purity takes work, more work than simply handing over a non-coin weight equivalent of iron.  Therefore the coins are a loss-leader and cease to be cost-effective.  Add in the fact that the coins will rust and cease to be authenticable and you have a second strike against iron.   Once the mint has enough reputation and wealth it will switch back to a non-consumable material and the market will go on its merry way.  



> The whole "wizards aren't allowed to use anything other than a staff or dagger" thing.  It sounds like a very, very transparent bolting on of AD&D rules into novel setting.




This was actually setting appropriate.  By forbidding wizards from weilding other weapons you kept the wizard/fighter combos from happening.  In a setting where the gods are weaklings afraid of the mortals the notion of a sword-weilding conan-wizard is terrifying.



> Actually, the whole "3 orders of wizardry that all wizards belong to and must join or die when they reach 5th level" bit also puts me off a little.




Yeah, this was a pita to me as well.  There were only 5 towers built and all were in Ansalon.    Probably why Taladas was so well liked. The Orders of High Sorcery never really flourished and most mages do not follow the orders.  Tamire shaman, dwarven craftsmen (mages!!), magically-capable gnimoi, Hulderfolk, and the Chasai'i (who don't use magic like any other race uses magic)  are so very far removed from the Orders. 

I treat a lot of it as propaganda.  Who, in their right mind, would remain outside the Order if every mage in the world would hunt you down?  Most people would fold just at the threat.  And you can't tell people that you aren't all powerful or the truly devolted individuals will leave the continent to further their studies elsewhere.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 30, 2005)

*Thanks Banshee16*



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Son of Thunder, if you had been interested in the stuff before 5th Age, you may wish to check out the DLCS, plus the War of the Lance sourcebook.  Both give you what you need to play before things got all messed up.  And the War of the Lance sourcebook has a prestige class for Knights of Solamnia that is one class instead of 5, doesn't have the mutated geography, has Towres of High Sorcery where they are supposed to be, etc.
> 
> Obviously, it's your choice.....but I wasn't sure if you'd seen the War of the Lance book or not.  Personally, I liked the DLCS, though not the Age of Mortals book so much.  But they've been doing a good job, and there's been some interesting stuff....the Bestiary, the Wizards of High Sorcery supplement, etc.
> 
> Banshee




Thanks Banshee16,

I appreciate the thought and ya, I've seen the new book. For me it doesn't spark the old fire. I have no regrets about not going back to Dragonlance. I don't like the current designers for Sovereign Press, and yes that includes Margaret Weis.

I've left Dragonlance behind and for me it's good riddance.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 30, 2005)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Thanks Banshee16,
> 
> I appreciate the thought and ya, I've seen the new book. For me it doesn't spark the old fire. I have no regrets about not going back to Dragonlance. I don't like the current designers for Sovereign Press, and yes that includes Margaret Weis.
> 
> I've left Dragonlance behind and for me it's good riddance.



Sounds like a bad experience with _Dragonlance_ prior to a system change.

And why don't you like Sovereign Press?


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 30, 2005)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> This was, IMO, a temporary thing that should have been corrected in SAGA and later.  When things go horribly, horribly wrong people stop valuing crap like gold and diamonds and begin using food, water, and clothing as the base of wealth.  Once the economy gets big enough (aka recovers) for individuals to start being "wealthy" the use of consumables stops and other tokens (aka money) resumes.  Iron is a necessary commodity and has the disadvantage of decaying (rusting).
> 
> The fact is that striking iron coins & ensuring purity takes work, more work than simply handing over a non-coin weight equivalent of iron.  Therefore the coins are a loss-leader and cease to be cost-effective.  Add in the fact that the coins will rust and cease to be authenticable and you have a second strike against iron.   Once the mint has enough reputation and wealth it will switch back to a non-consumable material and the market will go on its merry way.
> 
> ...




Just to point out a misconception....a White Robe would not be hunting down and killing people who refused to join the order, unless they were a grave danger.  It says that in both the DLCS and Wizards of High Sorcery books.  Red Robes would give a choice, and *might* kill someone who refused, and Black Robes would kill if they saw it as a benefit to themselves...otherwise they might try to use the renegade to their advantage, IIRC.

Banshee


----------



## Soulsong (Mar 31, 2005)

My solutions:
Retcon the War of Chaos to not have included the following:
KoT invaded sections of Ansalon, but did not overrun it.
Ionthas escapes, creates/changes creatures (makes Afflicted Kender), makes some geographic changes(destroys Kendermore), reintroduces Primal Sorcery(it was there all along, but it is now more common).
Irda are not destroyed.
Some of the Heroes die/gain closure.
Ionthas fights the gods but is eventually driven away/imprisoned again.
Takhisis does not steal the world.
Magic does not go away (nor is it tied to the moon gods anyway, so it never would have went away).
Blood Sea Maelstrom is still there.
Alien Dragons do not invade
War of Souls is not needed.
Minotaurs invade ruined Kendermore.
Silvanesti are still there, still cleaning up after Loracs Nightmare.
Qualinesti(Qualinost) is still there.
Thoradin is rediscovered.
Paladine and Takhisis are still Gods or not, but the pantheons have agreed to allow sponsorship of Quasidieties (if in balance across the 3 pantheons).

I would also retcon the following:
Kender, Gnomes, and Gully Dwarves are not generally as annoying as they are made out to be.  Individuals can still provide comic relief, but others are mercantile minded (Kendermeld blockades), reasonable engineers (Mad Gnomes), or just much rarer (Gully Dwarves).

Consider the following:
Spend some time to unify/explain previous world shaking events on other continents (Taladas, Land of the Brutes, etc…) and provide rationale for why Ansolon has been so central to these events.
Flesh out ancient regional histories for Ansalon and Taladas including maps and cultures/civilizations (the “Ker” of Ergoth/Sancrist, the “Ran” of Elian/Dairly, the “Ak” of Khur/Balifor, the “Xak” of Blodehelm/New Coast/Abanasinia, the “Itzan” of New Coast/Kharolis Mts/Plains of Dust, Aurim on Taladas, etc…).
Open up the prehistory to potential civilizations of Dragon worshipping Lizard Men or Huldrafolk (allow them the use of divine magic and primal sorcery).  Perhaps they had as powerful and as long a reign as the Creator Races of the Forgotten Realms.  I am sure this could be done while maintaining the influence of the Gods and the importance of Dragons.

I think these ideas introduce some change without throwing out all existing setting feel.
They are true to the flavor of the world (more true than the authors have decided in any case), and allow for a bit more stability as well as freedom and options for RPG campaigns.

All IMHO of course...


----------



## Mokona (Mar 31, 2005)

*Ultimate Dragonlance*

Only a *complete* overhaul and rewriting of the War of the Lance and the entire Dragonlance backstory in the tradition Marvel's "Ultimate" comic books would get me to play in Dragonlance.

The stories in Dragonlance are already written.  An RPG setting needs the stories to be written by and about the game I run in my home.  The setting of Dragonlance changes too often with time travel craziness.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 31, 2005)

Mokona said:
			
		

> The stories in Dragonlance are already written.  An RPG setting needs the stories to be written by and about the game I run in my home.



YOUR game?


----------

