# Dragonlance 4e in 2010?



## Knightfall (Sep 17, 2008)

So, I came across a thread on *Canonfire!* that says that Dragonlance 4e has been announced. So, I followed the link and ended up on WotC's forums.

Dragonlance is a go for 4th edition! - Wizards Community

This thread links to the *Dragonlance Nexus* which has the following blurb on the front page....



> *Long Live the Lance!*
> *Posted on 8/16/2008 by Dragonhelm*
> My friends, I'm very pleased to report that Dragonlance novels are continuing past 2009 and that there will be a Dragonlance 4th Edition!!! Details are sketchy at this time, however this information comes straight from the folks at GenCon. Thanks to our man-on-the-street, Kranar Drogin, for reporting this information. Say it loud, say it proud. Long Live the Lance!




Anyone have anymore info on this?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 17, 2008)

The latest episode of the Dragonlance Canticle goes into some good detail.

Phil Athans said that Dragonlance is a D&D brand and would be alive and well at WotC for the next 25 years (passing the 25-year milestone already).  When asked whether there would be a DL for 4e, Phil would not specifically say (due to audio recording), but he nodded his head emphatically signifying that yes, there would be a DL in 4th edition.

As of this time, there are no further details.  You can check out this thread for full details.


----------



## Derren (Sep 17, 2008)

Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.
Especially DL doesn't really work with 4E as it has a civilized, if slightly ravaged from war, society and doesn't focus so much on superawesomeheroes with uberleet powerz.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.
> Especially DL doesn't really work with 4E as it has a civilized, if slightly ravaged from war, society and doesn't focus so much on superawesomeheroes with uberleet powerz.




so another major change...just plop it next to the other 15 krynn shattering events...who notices one more


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 17, 2008)

Okay count me in as a hopeful skeptic, but in the early days of 3E, Dragonlance was also quoted by WotC as one of the settings that would receive an official treatment. That commitment was then withdrawn... in favour of MWP's most excellent licensed output, admittedly.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.
> Especially DL doesn't really work with 4E as it has a civilized, if slightly ravaged from war, society and doesn't focus so much on superawesomeheroes with uberleet powerz.




Um, Raistlin?

Surely the very first set of books would translate extremely well to 4e?

Having not really kept up with the continuity, I'm not familiar with where we are now, but the original storyline of incoming armies, the return of the Gods and so forth would make an excellent 4e "Points of Light" game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.



Oh, great another thread is butchered.
Why can I even read this.


Spoiler



My fault. An error in judgment.


----------



## jensun (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Oh, great another thread is butchered.
> Why can I even read this.
> 
> 
> ...



EnWorld has an ignore function?


----------



## Derren (Sep 17, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Um, Raistlin?
> 
> Surely the very first set of books would translate extremely well to 4e?
> 
> Having not really kept up with the continuity, I'm not familiar with where we are now, but the original storyline of incoming armies, the return of the Gods and so forth would make an excellent 4e "Points of Light" game.




Raistlin, after the first books, isn't really considered a PC anymore. He rather has the same status as Elminster.
Dragonlance always was low powered. Just compare the first books with some FR books, like the ones about Drizzt.
While Drizzt goes around slaying dragons, drow matrons and devils with his incredible sword skill, the heroes of the lance barely manage to kill a dragon with losses on their side, loose several members of their group during the adventure, either through natural causes or enemies and even at the end of the adventure are not above hiding behind a desk to have cover from a fireball.

Mechanically characters in DL always had more restrictions than normal D&D characters. Magic was restricted through the Order and through a (optional) drain mechanic and in 2E there was even a level cap for DL characters at lvl 18.
Dragonlance always was a low powered setting, but low powered and the 4E power system doesn't mix.

As for DL being a point of light setting, not in the traditional sense. While there was a great light vs. dark conflict with darkness winning at the beginning of the War of the Lance, the darkness was very lawful and not chaotic like in traditional PoL settings. The wilderness wasn't untamed and full of monsters so that no one dared to venture out of the village. Instead you had had tyrants who ruled over the land, but the land itself was rather safe. Even the goblins and ogres in DL build cities.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

jensun said:


> EnWorld has an ignore function?




I always try to avoid using it, and shortened the list from time to time (well if going from one to zero can count as shortening). But I have started using it a little more... 

So, can anyone paraphrase a little from the content of that thread? What definitive info did we get so far?
I must admit I don't know much about Dragonlance and are not particularly excited yet.


----------



## Kzach (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.
> Especially DL doesn't really work with 4E as it has a civilized, if slightly ravaged from war, society and doesn't focus so much on superawesomeheroes with uberleet powerz.




Yeah, not like that lame-ass setting with that God-killer Raistlin or dragon riding army led by his sister or their brother who travelled through time and saved the universe or...

...sorry, what was your point again?


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Just compare the first books with some FR books, like the ones about Drizzt. While Drizzt goes around slaying dragons, drow matrons and devils with his incredible sword skill, the heroes of the lance barely manage to kill a dragon with losses on their side, loose several members of their group during the adventure, either through natural causes or enemies and even at the end of the adventure are not above hiding behind a desk to have cover from a fireball.




Poor Writing does not equil low power setting


----------



## thundershot (Sep 17, 2008)

Ugh. Why another "normal" setting? I want something vastly different... Bring on Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, or Ravenloft (though RL is supposedly folding into core now). Still...


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 17, 2008)

jensun said:


> EnWorld has an ignore function?





Indeed.  It has saved the lives of many....


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Dragonlance always was a low powered setting, but low powered and the 4E power system doesn't mix.





So you keep saying.

But I think that is for the rest of us to decide.

I've been running my own homebrew setting ( a very low magic setting) with 4E and it has had a very good run so far. I must be doing it wrong.

As for DL being for 2010, I really doubt it. The next books will focus on psionics  so I think  Dark Sun maybe a better fit.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Sep 17, 2008)

Another rendition of a tired campaign setting?  Yawn.  I'm with Thundershot on this one.  I want to see something different, even if it is a retread of an old setting that isn't the same Tolkien-ish fantasy. 

The worst part is that I'll still likely pick up the new Dragonlance.  One thing I'll say about the setting, they had some interesting races running about in it.


----------



## Ginnel (Sep 17, 2008)

thundershot said:


> Ugh. Why another "normal" setting? I want something vastly different... Bring on Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, or Ravenloft (though RL is supposedly folding into core now). Still...



Agreed bog standard fantasy is covered by FR, a low powered bog standard fantasy shouldn't appear till 2011-2012 at least.

Gimmie another planescape, with detailed cities and states and politics, not another 4e Forgotten realms campaign setting book which to my mind was a bunch of simple plot hooks for adventures.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 17, 2008)

I sure hope they do a better job than they did with the 3E DLCS- that was the most uninspiring campaign setting book Ive ever owned.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 17, 2008)

I've never been much of a fan of Dragonlance as a D&D setting, but I'm curious to see what they do with it.  At least they won't have to worry about how to fit dragonborn into the setting.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, Dragonlance concluded with the end of the _Legends_ trilogy; there was no Chaos War and there most definitely was no War of Souls.


----------



## occam (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> The wilderness wasn't untamed and full of monsters so that no one dared to venture out of the village. Instead you had had tyrants who ruled over the land, but the land itself was rather safe.




Wow, I don't remember it that way at all. It seemed to me that traveling through the wilderness was pretty dangerous. And there was A LOT of wilderness. Take a look at a map of Ansalon. There are some scattered cities, city-states even, with enormous tracts of virtually unsettled land between, hundreds of miles across.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 17, 2008)

Count me among those that don't want to see Dragonlance in 2010; that would mean that, at the earliest, Wizards would be putting out a new setting in 2011...three years after 4E started.

I also think it more likely that Dark Sun gets official treatment before Dragonlance, but who knows? Wizards might not even be sure what they're going to do after Eberron in 2009.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 17, 2008)

I never played or read Dragonlance.

Would anyone like to pitch the setting's cool hooks and/or unique feel?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Mercurius said:


> Count me among those that don't want to see Dragonlance in 2010; that would mean that, at the earliest, Wizards would be putting out a new setting in 2011...three years after 4E started.
> 
> I also think it more likely that Dark Sun gets official treatment before Dragonlance, but who knows? Wizards might not even be sure what they're going to do after Eberron in 2009.




Do they even went to put out new settings? I'd like to see some (at least one using the entire PoL background information), but I am not sure that's even a goal.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 17, 2008)

jensun said:


> EnWorld has an ignore function?




What an excellent idea. 

The settings hasn´t even been announced and the whining how it is going to be ruined is already starting? Bah! I want Dragonlance, and i want a creative re-imagination! Smash it to pieces and set it together anew! No chaos war crap, no half-hearted continuing of the storyline ("events this summer: Draconian army 34 moves from A to B"). Be creative and agressive about it - i don´t need "slightly changed classic dragonlance." I own that already.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 17, 2008)

wedgeski said:


> Okay count me in as a hopeful skeptic, but in the early days of 3E, Dragonlance was also quoted by WotC as one of the settings that would receive an official treatment. That commitment was then withdrawn... in favour of MWP's most excellent licensed output, admittedly.



Not quite.  WotC promised 3e support for Dragonlance, and delivered.  The first setting book was actually published by WotC!  The subsequent books were published by Sovereign Press (which I believe morphed in Margaret Weiss Publishing or some such).  We got tons of official 3e Dragonlance books!  Yes, the majority of the line was licensed, but who cares?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 17, 2008)

Heh, I always thought 4e would be a good fit for Dragonlance...

Draconians (Dragonborn)? Check.
Three mechanically distinct fey races (elves)? Check.
Wizards with staves? Check.
Kender (halflings)? Check.
Civilized Minotaurs? Check.
The Abyss as something more than the CE plane? Check!

All that Dragonlance would really need to do is explain away tieflings (not hard) and the PHB is good out the door!

As a bonus: DL would bring Wizard of High Sorcery Paragon Paths, Knight of Solomnia Paragon, Handler Paragon Path, and a bunch of cool stuff.

While I'd have gone either Ravenloft (which appears to be worming itself into the core) or Planescape (ditto, see MotP), Dragonlance works. 

Bring on Dark Sun 2011!


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 17, 2008)

Nifft said:


> I never played or read Dragonlance.
> 
> Would anyone like to pitch the setting's cool hooks and/or unique feel?




Hmm... well, I don't know that it really has cool hooks, per se.  It's one of the oldest D&D settings, dating all the way back to 1st Edition, and settings back then tended to be relatively generic - as I recall, it wasn't until 2E that we started getting exotic settings like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Spelljammer.

I guess I'd say that the defining trait of the Dragonlance setting, as compared to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, is that Dragonlance has an overarching narrative which is mostly lacking in the other two.  Some of the specific features of Dragonlance are:


A clearly delineated, Manichean clash of Big Good versus Big Evil.  Instead of an assortment of loosely affiliated deities, the Dragonlance gods are divided into three pantheons - good, evil, and neutral - with established leaders and nobody unaccounted for*.  The conflict between Paladine, the chief god of good, and Takhisis, the chief goddess of evil, drives much of the story.
A philosophical commitment to a balance between good and evil.  The good and neutral gods have an alliance, wherein they both try to maintain the balance.  The evil gods have no interest in balance and are constantly trying to tip the scales in favor of evil.  The way this generally plays out is that good and evil are roughly balanced; evil launches a campaign to become ascendant; good intervenes to put a stop to it and restore the status quo.
Dragons are not solitary monsters; they are agents of the gods and take an active part in the aforementioned good-versus-evil clash.  Powerful leaders on both sides ride on dragon mounts, and big armies often have dragon air support.  The gods themselves have a dragon theme going on.  Paladine is also called the Platinum Dragon and looks a lot like Bahamut; Takhisis is the Five-Headed Dragon and is a dead ringer for Tiamat**.
A tendency for world-spanning organizations to dominate the action.  Beyond the first few levels, all wizards must take a Test and join one of the three orders of wizardry (the White Robes, Red Robes, or Black Robes, again corresponding to good, neutral, and evil).  Instead of traditional paladins, Dragonlance has the Knights of Solamnia, a powerful order dedicated to the service of the good gods and bound by an ancient code of laws.  The forces of evil are largely controlled by the Dragon Highlords.  And so on.
 The upshot of all this is that Dragonlance lends itself to epic fantasy in the Tolkien style, while Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are much more swords-and-sorcery.  This is somewhat limiting from a DM perspective, because you're locked into the overarching narrative - you can't introduce a new Big Evil without explaining what the heck happened to Takhisis.  On the other hand, if you're okay with following that narrative, the whole setting supports it.

Also, Dragonlance was responsible for perpetrating both kender and tinker gnomes.

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-2]* Raistlin Majere doesn't count.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-2]** In fact, when 2E launched its ill-fated effort to consolidate all its campaign worlds into a single multiverse, they declared that Paladine _was_ Bahamut and Takhisis _was_ Tiamat, just going by different names for the benefit of their followers on Krynn (the world of Dragonlance).
[/SIZE][/SIZE]


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 17, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> Not quite.  WotC promised 3e support for Dragonlance, and delivered.  The first setting book was actually published by WotC!  The subsequent books were published by Sovereign Press (which I believe morphed in Margaret Weiss Publishing or some such).  We got tons of official 3e Dragonlance books!  Yes, the majority of the line was licensed, but who cares?



Well, being picky about who published the DLCS aside (the SP guys certainly wrote it), it's a different implied goal. FR and DL were originally both stated as being in the pipeline for a 3E treatment from Wizards, then they announced that they'd changed their mind about DL (announced might be extravagant... I believe Jim Butler posted a message somewhere... it was a long time ago, memory... hazy...). Some time after that, they then licensed it to SP. To me, licensing a property, and developing it in-house, say two different things about how that property is valued. Cam or Dragonhelm might have better recall about how it all went down.

Having said that, Sovereign Press's output was, on the whole, damn good, and I think they did the line proud.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 17, 2008)

I have fond memories of playing 2E Dragonlance. I never got into Dragonlance in its 3E conception, but I know I'd love to see the setting updated for 4E.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Dragonlance always was low powered. Just compare the first books with some FR books, like the ones about Drizzt.



The Drizzt books were never intended to track a written adventure. The DL books tracked the DL adventures, including starting at low level and leveling up. The DL books did a pretty good job of describing what it's like to be a low level Hero.

Also: Raistlin (Wiz 20, Master of Past and Present), Ariakas (Ftr/Wiz 20, Dragon Highlord), Ariakan (Half-God Ftr 20 Dragon Highlord), Astinus (God's Aspect, Immortal), Fistandantilus, Kingpriest of Istar, Par Salian ...

Are these people PCs? Does it matter? If Elminster and the Simbul make FR "high powered" than you have to count Par Salian, Raistlin, etc. too. Fair's fair.

I would also like to point out that any setting where there are standing armies that ride Elder Wyrm Red, Gold, Blue, etc. dragons can not, in any sense of the word, be "low powered." Regardless of what level their riders are.

Lastly, Kaz would kick Drizzt's ass.




Derren said:


> Mechanically characters in DL always had more restrictions than normal D&D characters. Magic was restricted through the Order and through a (optional) drain mechanic and in 2E there was even a level cap for DL characters at lvl 18.



I fail to see why a DL 4E couldn't adopt similar restrictions if they wanted to. Just because the current 4E rules don't map perfectly to Krynn doesn't mean that couldn't be fixed.




Derren said:


> low powered and the 4E power system doesn't mix.



This is categorically false. They map fine. The simplest way to do it is cap level advancement at Level X (whether X=10, 15, 20, etc. depends on what you're aiming for). But there are other ways too. Rather than be small-minded about it and continually repeat the untrue you should try it some time.




Derren said:


> As for DL being a point of light setting, not in the traditional sense.



You don't consider Solace a point of light? What about Tarsis? 




Derren said:


> the darkness was very lawful and not chaotic like in traditional PoL settings.



Takhisis was Lawful Evil? Who knew! </sarcasm> 

Red Dragons, goblins, draconians - plenty of chaotic evil to go around.




Derren said:


> The wilderness wasn't untamed and full of monsters



Of course. The comfortable resting spot outside Solace, the road to Haven, Darken Wood, the plains of Que Shu and Xak Tsaroth weren't _at all _like that.  Very civilized. No monsters at all.

Am I out of Chapter 5 of the very first book yet? 




Derren said:


> Instead you had had tyrants who ruled over the land, but the land itself was rather safe.



This is true. No one ever was attacked by monsters while traveling the roads of Krynn. Not in any of the novels I read.

Wait, no, the opposite.



Derren said:


> Even the goblins and ogres in DL build cities.



Yeah, cities full of goblins and ogres.

Actually, check that. What cities are you talking about? The closest thing to a city I can think of was Neraka (which was a ruin from a previous Age) and the army camps set up by Draconians (not ogres or goblins). Ogres and goblins attacked, sacked, and occupied cities (like Vikings on PCP), but I don't recall them building any.

Are you sure you're talking about Dragonlance? Maybe you were thinking of something else ...


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 17, 2008)

wedgeski said:


> FR and DL were originally both stated as being in the pipeline for a 3E treatment from Wizards, then they announced that they'd changed their mind about DL (announced might be extravagant... I believe Jim Butler posted a message somewhere... it was a long time ago, memory... hazy...).




I can't find any evidence that Wizards said that Dragonlance would be handled in 3e. However, I can find evidence that Dragonlance was explicitly stated to not receive support 4 months after 3e's launch (December 2000, Jim Butler), and it was another year or two before SP picked up the license.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> This is categorically false. They map fine. The simplest way to do it is cap level advancement at Level X (whether X=10, 15, 20, etc. depends on what you're aiming for).




You don't even need to do that.  4E supports low-powered campaigns quite well; you start out stronger than in previous editions, but the power gain from levelling up is fairly small.  A 30th-level character in 4E is much less powerful than a 20th-level character in 2E.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 17, 2008)

DL?

Okay.

*BORED NOW, WANT NEW THING*

Or at least "different old thing."


----------



## Derren (Sep 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> The Drizzt books were never intended to track a written adventure. The DL books tracked the DL adventures, including starting at low level and leveling up. The DL books did a pretty good job of describing what it's like to be a low level Hero.




Okey, then what FR lore would you propose to use as comparisation?


> Also: Raistlin (Wiz 20, Master of Past and Present), Ariakas (Ftr/Wiz 20, Dragon Highlord), Ariakan (Half-God Ftr 20 Dragon Highlord), Astinus (God's Aspect, Immortal), Fistandantilus, Kingpriest of Istar, Par Salian ...




Except that there are less high powered individuals in the entire history of Krynn than what most organizations have in the FR.







> Are these people PCs? Does it matter? If Elminster and the Simbul make FR "high powered" than you have to count Par Salian, Raistlin, etc. too. Fair's fair.




Ok, so over the entire history of DL you have about 10 high powered individuals. Compare that with FR. Seven sisters + Khelben + Elminster + dozens of others.







> I would also like to point out that any setting where there are standing armies that ride Elder Wyrm Red, Gold, Blue, etc. dragons can not, in any sense of the word, be "low powered." Regardless of what level their riders are.




DL dragons were always portrayed rather weak. Also what does it matter if teh dragons serve in an army or sit around the countryside? Do you think that the FR has fewer, less powerful dragons (Nexus, Klauth, Balagos, Daurgothoth, Tchezzar, Inferno,...)


> You don't consider Solace a point of light? What about Tarsis?




Do we mean the same Solace? The well travelled village sitting right on a big, important trade route? 
And Tarsis also was a trade hub, although nothing compared to the pre-cataclysm Tarsis.
Both cities are not really points of light where no one dares to leave in fear of monsters. On whole Ansalon trade flourishes and there is no real "Don't go outside because the monsters might get you" feeling. When something threatened the people of Ansalon then it is open warfare and not wild monsters.







> Takhisis was Lawful Evil? Who knew! </sarcasm>
> 
> Red Dragons, goblins, draconians - plenty of chaotic evil to go around.




All organized in a highly structured army. Later Thakisis had even very lawful knightly orders. And draconians have a rigid military society. No chaos at all.
There weren't many "wandering monsters" in DL unless it was a time of war and the wandering monsters were enemy soldiers.







> Of course. The comfortable resting spot outside Solace, the road to Haven, Darken Wood, the plains of Que Shu and Xak Tsaroth weren't _at all _like that.  Very civilized. No monsters at all.




All not so dangerous as to make it a PoL setting. Rather those are points of darkness in a sea of grey.







> This is true. No one ever was attacked by monsters while traveling the roads of Krynn. Not in any of the novels I read.
> 
> Wait, no, the opposite.




Yeah, because it was war and those "monsters" were working for the other side.







> Yeah, cities full of goblins and ogres.
> 
> Actually, check that. What cities are you talking about? The closest thing to a city I can think of was Neraka (which was a ruin from a previous Age) and the army camps set up by Draconians (not ogres or goblins). Ogres and goblins attacked, sacked, and occupied cities (like Vikings on PCP), but I don't recall them building any.




Except for the nation of Blöten consisting out of several cities and villages, all ruled by Ogres. And no, they weren't just big dungeons. Those Ogres for example traded with dwarves for example.
And then there is Sikk'et Hul, a peaceful goblin nation.







> Are you sure you're talking about Dragonlance? Maybe you were thinking of something else ...




I think that is rather your problem.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 17, 2008)

At various points in it's publication, Dragonlance would make a great PoL setting. The problem is, DL isn't like FR, where the realms get shattered but you can still recognize things. DL just massively chances it's entire feel/focus 5-6 times.

They consolidated Age of Mortals into a coherent setting, then threw some novels in the mix that totally muddied up everything. I left Krynn behind, and don't know where it's at now. If they could consolidate again, perhaps it could work, but I think it'd just make the world unplayable again anyway.


----------



## Ares (Sep 17, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> The latest episode of the Dragonlance Canticle goes into some good detail.
> 
> Phil Athans said that Dragonlance is a D&D brand and would be alive and well at WotC for the next 25 years (passing the 25-year milestone already).  When asked whether there would be a DL for 4e, Phil would not specifically say (due to audio recording), but he nodded his head emphatically signifying that yes, there would be a DL in 4th edition.
> 
> As of this time, there are no further details.  You can check out this thread for full details.



And I would like to point out to the viewing "audience" what I said on that thread, my dear Dragonhelm, is that this only amounts to an "official rumor" which is an oxymoron.  
You're a great boon to the DL community, but I think you jumped the gun on this one.  This could go south *so* easily.  I'd wait until there was some sort of confirmation from WotC, not necessarily of releasing the setting, but at to least acknowledge that there are talks being finalized.  As for Athans' comment, that could very have well been referring to the recent snaffu WotC has had with Weis and Hickman over the novels, right?  Right now I'm really getting the impression that WotC is wrestling Weis and Hickman over their level of influence upon WotC's property.
When I asked Weis about the novel stuff at GenCon, she said everything was alright but said with the most weary expression.  The whole encounter left we with the impression that things are probably going to get kind of south with Dragonlance and WotC in the next few years.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Sep 17, 2008)

*Hmmm.*

Can we only post in this thread if we are for DL 4e? If so I guess I won't post.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 17, 2008)

Whether or not I will care about DL 4e will depend on 3 main questions.

(1) Will there be Kender?
(2) Will there be Tinker Gnomes?
(3) Will there be Gully Dwarves?

An affirmative answer to any of the above would basically negate any interest I'd have in the setting. 

-O


----------



## ferratus (Sep 17, 2008)

On the issue of whether Dragonlance is a high magic or a low magic world, the consensus among the fanbase is that Dragonlance has the ordinary level of D&D magic in it, if not more.

However, the magical item trade and magical practice is private instead of public.  There are mageware shops that sell some minor magical items, but the stores are usually only in major cities like Palanthas or Sanction, and are run by the Wizards of High Sorcery.   In fact, most of the trade in magic is done between members of that secretive order.

Magical item weapons of war are usually made through the churches, particularly those of good and evil.  

On the issue of Dragonlance and 4e, the new edition seems to be relatively well received among the fanbase, and makes it easier to do a lot of dragonlance tropes.   Dragonlance is known for its artifacts for example, so the new way of doing artifacts (at every tier, and move along after awhile) allows for them to be more accessible during campaigns.  

Monsters can cause damage when brought to zero hp in 4e like draconians, halflings are kender, dragonborn make dragon-men as a PC race more viable, and warlocks make excellent renegades.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 17, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Whether or not I will care about DL 4e will depend on 3 main questions.
> 
> (1) Will there be Kender?
> (2) Will there be Tinker Gnomes?
> ...




I'd say the answer is probably yes... but only two- no more then two. [/nosepick]


----------



## Ares (Sep 17, 2008)

Son_of_Thunder said:


> Can we only post in this thread if we are for DL 4e? If so I guess I won't post.



Too late.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 17, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Heh, I always thought 4e would be a good fit for Dragonlance...
> 
> Draconians (Dragonborn)? Check.
> Three mechanically distinct fey races (elves)? Check.
> ...




Or completely ruin knights of solomnia, and High Sorceror and such.God no, tieflings do NOT belong in DL. At all. The races and such are well defined, even as Minotaurs and Ogres have docieties. Tieflings dont belong.Dragonborn are.....iffy. Draconians are already well defined, unless dragon born are just draconians in disguise. There arent any good ones after all.Thats what some of us mean by butchered. Among other things.Your trying to shoehorn in 4e items that just dont belong.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 17, 2008)

Obryn said:


> (1) Will there be Kender?



Yes; in 4E we call them "Halflings." (+5 save vs. fear?) Any changes would be purely cosmetic and RP-based, which is better enforced by table rules.




Obryn said:


> (2) Will there be Tinker Gnomes?



Yes, but in 4E Gnomes are Monsters ("_Raaawr!_"), so you can kill them and take their stuff. That's not so bad.




Obryn said:


> (3) Will there be Gully Dwarves?



Were there ever? I mean, as a seriously offered PC race? I think the answer to that question must be "No".


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> Both cities are not really points of light ... All not so dangerous as to make it a PoL setting. Rather those are points of darkness in a sea of grey.



That's a bogus distinction. There isn't only one kind of PoL, with all others are incapable of being a 4E setting.  For one, PoL captures a wide range of possibilities (of which Krynn certainly is one), and for two, PoL is merely the default setting, not the only kind of setting you can use 4E rules in. 

Krynn is PoL "enough" for anyone who doesn't have fixed preconceptions of "only one 'amount' of safety qualifies", and even if it were peaceful fields of happy daisies from Ergoth to Icewall you could still use 4E rules.

And the existence of one or two "monster" nations does not make all of Krynn free of darkness any more than Wulgar makes Icewind Dale a land full to the brim of peaceful & friendly barbarians.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Were there ever? I mean, as a seriously offered PC race? I think the answer to that question must be "No".




I think they were offered in the 2e boxed set if I remember correctly. I never picked up the 3e stuff, so I don't know what was there.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Yes; in 4E we call them "Halflings." (+5 save vs. fear?) Any changes would be purely cosmetic and RP-based, which is better enforced by table rules.



I agree that D&D halflings have been somewhat kenderized, but thankfully the ridiculous kleptomania was removed.  And really, it's the stealing stuff shtick and resultant spotlight-hogging that caused them to be banned from many a table, not their fearlessness.



> Yes, but in 4E Gnomes are Monsters ("_Raaawr!_"), so you can kill them and take their stuff. That's not so bad.



Kill tinker gnomes and take their Rube Goldberg-esque contraptions?  How's this an improvement? 



> Were there ever? I mean, as a seriously offered PC race? I think the answer to that question must be "No".



Well, I remember them clearly in the Dragonlance Adventures hardcover...

I think what I'm saying is, "Any race which was provided in a novel for comic relief probably makes a bad PC race at my table." 

I am not saying it will be a bad setting - it may be a perfectly good setting that i just don't happen to enjoy.  (This is an option that ENWorld seems to forget all too often.)

-O


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 17, 2008)

If I were in charge of this project, I would do a complete reboot of the setting, similar to how Marvel's Ultimate line reboots the continuity of Marvel's traditional comics.  I would try to capture the essense of the setting (immense and epic threats, the clash of vast armies and titanic personalities, soaring romances and bitter betrayals, honor and duty, etc.) and just rewrite everything going with that.  I would reset things to about where they were at the beginning of first DL book.

In terms of scope and tone, my DL would have strong resonances with the various Gundam animes.  The Gundam series all are set in a backdrop of a huge war, neither side has a monopoly on good or evil, and the focus is on the characters as they struggle to understand their places in the world and with each other.  That is DL to me.

Many setting elements would change, some greatly, some slightly.  Kender would basically be 4e halflings (I'd lose the racial kleptomania).  Indeed, I feel that "kender" should have been the official name for 4e halflings.  The draconians would be reconcepted into the dragonborn, who return to the world with the dragons.  Some would fight on the side of evil while others would turn to good.  Paladine and Takhisis would be called Bahamut and Tiamat, respectively.  There's probably a lot more out there.

I'm not familiar with DL outside of the Preludes and the Chronicles, but I would try to bring in all the cool elements from the extended continuity inside.  I like DL minotaurs and the irda.  There's probably more that I would like as well.   

Unfortunately, this will never happen, because it would invalidate the novels completely.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 17, 2008)

I want a book like the Eartdawn "Prelude to War" for Dragonlance: describing major events in a complicated conflict which is - from beginning to end - linked to the player characters, their background and culture. A book where the future isn´t set, where Dragonarmies are on the move, where major events are decided by the players. I want a "this is where it begins" description, followed by a "this is how you make the game work" section, followed by awesome encounter packages that happen while the PCs are on fire. On a flying citadel. Attacked by dragons. 

I don´t want a book full of "and this is Solamnia, dontchernow, we wear plate here." This = boooring.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 17, 2008)

I'd say the ham-handed half-ass way FR was thrown through stupid and pointless vaguely apocalyptic changes for no cohoerent reason makes them the PERFECT candidates for Dragonlance, and I honestly say that without any sarcasm.  And I find that both hilarious and depressing at the same time.


----------



## teitan (Sep 18, 2008)

JeffB said:


> I sure hope they do a better job than they did with the 3E DLCS- that was the most uninspiring campaign setting book Ive ever owned.




I don't know about that. The text was excellently written but the book certainly had some major flaws from substandard and inconsistent artwork to the poor geographical section and the lack of a single scale map. I wrote a review of it.


----------



## Coalcrystal (Sep 18, 2008)

*What kind of gamer are you?*

Here is my pasted face outta the candle-lit Mirror! Woo spooky , thats Spooky,...


You Scored as *Storyteller* 
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director.


Storyteller92%Power Gamer67%Method Actor58%Tactician58%Butt-Kicker58%Specialist50%Casual Gamer25%


<table width="400" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4"><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/Fashion/ellydragon/laws-game-style"></a></td></tr><tr><td><BR>

oops- i think I posted to the wrong thread...

Sterm will be sorely missed.

Edit: OMG! these things are riddled throughout theses posts! It's like a incurable plague...I just took another one. I'm a Chaotic Good Elf Bard! http://twinrose.net/dandchar.php


----------



## teitan (Sep 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> Okey, then what FR lore would you propose to use as *comparisation*?




_mod edit: We have a no-politics rule around here._

It wasn't political, it was satire...


----------



## Urza (Sep 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> Just compare the first books with some FR books, like the ones about Drizzt.
> While Drizzt goes around slaying dragons *snip snip snip snip snip*




Wow do you not know what you're talking about. 1986... Drizzt kills a white dragon... go look at how many hit points white dragons had in 1e.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 18, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> If I were in charge of this project, I would do a complete reboot of the setting, similar to how Marvel's Ultimate line reboots the continuity of Marvel's traditional comics. I would try to capture the essense of the setting (immense and epic threats, the clash of vast armies and titanic personalities, soaring romances and bitter betrayals, honor and duty, etc.) and just rewrite everything going with that. I would reset things to about where they were at the beginning of first DL book.
> 
> In terms of scope and tone, my DL would have strong resonances with the various Gundam animes. The Gundam series all are set in a backdrop of a huge war, neither side has a monopoly on good or evil, and the focus is on the characters as they struggle to understand their places in the world and with each other. That is DL to me.
> 
> ...




If your going to do all that, why not make a whole new world instead of destroying the things that make DL unquie among itself?

Draconian are not dragonborn. They were something unique to DL that the dark queen twisted good dragon eggs to evil....there are no good evquivilants. Nor should there be.

What the various proposals sound like is...."just make kender halflings. Just make draconians dragonborn" and just ruins some special and make it....boring.

Its like FR all over again.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Sep 18, 2008)

Hammering Tieflings, Dragonborn etc into DL would be the wrong approach if they chose to do 4e DL. A Marvel style reset could work - who cares if it invalidates the novels. Does Marvel care if it invalidates prior comics. Hell No!

I am not excited by the news of a new DL. I agree with a number of posters in this thread that what 4e needs is new worlds, new races and new settings. Bring on the new WOTC! This is not the creatively bankrupt movie industry this is roleplaying, use your imagination WOTC.

Also I am with you Obryn, Kender ruin games.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 18, 2008)

I know in the movie industry  you'll see a lot of remakes and sequels in times of economic stress. Less money to risk means less money for things that aren't tried and true.  

I wonder if the same thing happens in gaming?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Sep 18, 2008)

Kanegrundar said:


> Another rendition of a tired campaign setting?  Yawn.  I'm with Thundershot on this one.  I want to see something different, even if it is a retread of an old setting that isn't the same Tolkien-ish fantasy.



The irony being, of course, that Dragonlance *was* different from the "same Tolkien-ish fantasy" by Eighties standards. I mean, no orcs? Lithe, kleptomaniac kender instead of homey, rotund hobbits^Whalflings? Dragon-men as common opponents and dragonriders serving both Good and Evil? Tinker gnomes with their advanced (if wholly unreliable) technology?

Yeah, looking back now it seems a thin distinction in the light of Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape, but back when it came out they deliberately tried *not* to take too much from Tolkien (explicitly, if the stories of the world-design sessions told in _The Art of Dragonlance_ are to be believed).


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Folks,

Dragonlance is definitely going to go forward. The novel line is going to be supported, but they're not sure what exactly is going to happen with the gaming side of things.

As to whether it will work under 4e? Absolutely. I have every confidence that it will, and in fact in many ways it will work better with the current rules set than it did under 3.5. And I say that as one of MWP's 3.5 DL design team.

I can also pretty much be sure that they're not going to reboot it. That would annoy more people than you know.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## JeffB (Sep 18, 2008)

teitan said:


> I don't know about that. The text was excellently written but the book certainly had some major flaws from substandard and inconsistent artwork to the poor geographical section and the lack of a single scale map. I wrote a review of it.




See I thought the book (3E DLCS)looked decent enough (barring the map issue) , but I found it extremely bland.

Now mind you, I've ONLY read the original trilogy of books around the late 1990s, but I liked them alot. When I was a teen and DL modules first came came out someone ran one, and we quit halfway through because of the blatant railroad-hence the reason it took me 15 years or so to finally get around to reading the books.

After reading that original DL trilogy I immediately went out and bought the Dragonlance SAGA game (since it was the only current DL setting stuff)  frankly I loved that SAGA box- In particular I thought the smallish campaign booklet was very inspiring to read and extremely well done (you have to remember, -I'm not a hardcore DL fan and don't know all the history, so the changes didn't seem all that big of a deal to me).  The SAGA DL Bestiary was hands down the best "monster manual" I've come across. Brilliant and Beautiful book. Unfortunately never could get a game going. 

Wanting to get all things DL, I then bought the Tales of the Lance boxed set  (2E) and it was "OK". Not horrible, not brilliant. So, I was hoping for a big improvement in the 3E DLCS and was looking fwd to it- and the book just did not get me excited to run  a DL campaign like the SAGA material did-not even close. Diferent strokes and all  :shrug:


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 18, 2008)

carmachu said:


> They were something unique to DL that the dark queen twisted good dragon eggs to evil....there are no good evquivilants. Nor should there be.




So, you're saying that the Noble Draconians entry in the Bestiary of Krynn (pages 16-24) doesn't exist?



> "just make kender halflings.




4e halflings are basically just kender. All they need is a racial power to taunt, some of their racial weapons thrown in, and viola, the mechanics are done.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 4e halflings are basically just kender. All they need is a racial power to taunt, some of their racial weapons thrown in, and viola, the mechanics are done.




I wrote an unofficial conversion document for our Races of Ansalon sourcebook and the Dragonlance Nexus put it online here.

It's definitely a work in progress—I've had some good feedback from the fans over at the Dragonlance forums already.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I can also pretty much be sure that they're not going to reboot it. That would annoy more people than you know.



Twelve!

(I kid because, between the ages of 10 and about 15, I loved.)


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Twelve!
> 
> (I kid because, between the ages of 10 and about 15, I loved.)




We do actually appreciate the YA audience over here, you know.  That sector sells through ten times as many books as the adult one in the same categories within fantasy and sci-fi. If we're appealing to the 10-15 year olds, then bonus.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Sep 18, 2008)

For sure. I mean, Dragonlance isn't to my taste at all anymore - but when I was that age, I quite literally tried to read and own every Dragonlance book. I did end up with several dozen before I lost interest.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 18, 2008)

carmachu said:


> If your going to do all that, why not make a whole new world instead of destroying the things that make DL unquie among itself?



You missed my point.  I'd keep all the things that make DL a unique, compelling, high drama world and drop things that get in the way.  Not much gets the way, to be honest.  But I think the setting should get a reset and reinvigoration.



> Draconian are not dragonborn. They were something unique to DL that the dark queen twisted good dragon eggs to evil....there are no good evquivilants. Nor should there be.



Well, you're certainly entitled to feel that way.  However, I feel like that limits the possible stories to be told by the setting and works to DL's detriment.



> Its like FR all over again.



Honestly, if DL got something like the 4e FR treatment, I think it would be a better setting.  The changes to FR have really energized FR IMO.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 18, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> You missed my point.  I'd keep all the things that make DL a unique, compelling, high drama world and drop things that get in the way.  Not much gets the way, to be honest.  But I think the setting should get a reset and reinvigoration.
> 
> 
> Well, you're certainly entitled to feel that way.  However, I feel like that limits the possible stories to be told by the setting and works to DL's detriment.
> ...




Point one and point two and point three are a contradiction.You cant keep eveything unique and then turn around and destroy much of the setting like FR and re-energize the setting. Doesnt work. 

Limits, rather than evenything including the kitchen sink approach 4e seems to espouse wouldnt work.Kender arent halflings. Draconians arent dragonborn. Tieflings do not fit at all. There's no demons that I recall in my memory. 

DL's limits are what made the story. And further story. DL had a stroy to tell and told it well. Its like saying...yeah LotR's had a great tale, BUT its limiting lets throw in some Dragonborn or Tielflings. And change those damned dwarves and elves.And throw out the story that it told altogether.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 18, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So, you're saying that the Noble Draconians entry in the Bestiary of Krynn (pages 16-24) doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 4e halflings are basically just kender. All they need is a racial power to taunt, some of their racial weapons thrown in, and viola, the mechanics are done.




Yup. I think thats total abomination. There were no good ones in my day.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Tieflings do not fit at all. There's no demons that I recall in my memory.




I had both tieflings AND demons in Price of Courage, the mega-adventure we published a year or two ago. And they had good reasons to be in there! True story.

Take a look at the combined monster statistics charts in the original DL modules, too. Several of them look like an index to Fiend Folio or Monster Manual II. Dragonlance had shadow dragons and wemics before the Realms had even been published as a campaign setting outside of Ed's Dragon articles.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 18, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Point one and point two and point three are a contradiction.You cant keep eveything unique and then turn around and destroy much of the setting like FR and re-energize the setting. Doesnt work.



It does, and FR is proof that it does.

In any case, I don't want to do anything to the setting.  I want to start over, taking all the good ideas from the past, and a few of the new ones.  I don't want to "destroy" anything.


----------



## vazanar (Sep 18, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> It does, and FR is proof that it does.
> 
> In any case, I don't want to do anything to the setting. I want to start over, taking all the good ideas from the past, and a few of the new ones. I don't want to "destroy" anything.




FR is doing well due to bieng the only real supplement out for DD 4e and the Living Campaign. I think far more people are cutting it for parts than really redoing FR, save for the RPGA. Which to WOTC's credit is what they wanted it to be, part of core. I have a feeling a new setting in the same situation would have done as well. (Note: While I dont like many changes my group is using the books for many things, so a + from me)

The question for Dragonlance is does it bring enough new stuff to the table, or does DDI support do enough to cover it? If they want to start over why not just make a new world with the lessons from dragonlance? 4e's new world.

Id prefer Planescape and Spelljammer since they will expand the Paragon and Epic landscape. More parts to pick from.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Sep 18, 2008)

I for one welcome our new "old setting resurrecting" overlords.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 18, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> (snip interesting stuff)
> 
> Also, Dragonlance was responsible for perpetrating both kender and tinker gnomes.



 "I'm readying an action to Sunder the Dragonlance setting when it comes within range."

I was vaguely interested until "kender". Now: ugh.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Nifft said:


> "I'm readying an action to Sunder the Dragonlance setting when it comes within range."
> 
> I was vaguely interested until "kender". Now: ugh.




I'm frankly shocked you hadn't heard or read much about Dragonlance before, to be honest. It's one of the oldest and most successful D&D campaign settings in the world.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Lastly, Kaz would kick Drizzt's ass.



Damn straight!

Kaz is my favorite Dragonlance character. He rocks!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 18, 2008)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so another major change...just plop it next to the other 15 krynn shattering events...who notices one more




Hate to say it, but that was pretty much my take. FR has been pretty butchered but next to Dragonlance, it looks like minor wounds.


----------



## Ares (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I had both tieflings AND demons in Price of Courage, the mega-adventure we published a year or two ago. And they had good reasons to be in there! True story.




And it was a very nice adventure, too.  However, most of the fellows that did Dl3e came from the old DL3e website, so compared to "classic" 'lance, it becomes just like the Magius language or like Noble Draconians:  expanded universe aka, largely apocryphal, or to put it in the TVtropes.org way, the Inmates Running the Asylum.  

Hell, most of the old fans that got out of DL don't count the Summer of Chaos onwards, as it was that stuff that alienated them from the setting.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I'm frankly shocked you hadn't heard or read much about Dragonlance before, to be honest. It's one of the oldest and most successful D&D campaign settings in the world.



 I skipped late 1e, and all of 2nd edition. Most of what I know about FR is what I learned from Baldur's Gate II, and the 3.0e FRCS (which was a gorgeous book).

Basically, I had dropped the game between the 1st printing of Deities & Demigods and the 3.0e PHB.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> As to whether it will work under 4e? Absolutely. I have every confidence that it will, and in fact in many ways it will work better with the current rules set than it did under 3.5. And I say that as one of MWP's 3.5 DL design team.




   Hmm...I can see some difficulties with magic-users, given how heavily 1E's spellcasting system and weapon restrictions were written into the setting, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a workaround.



> I can also pretty much be sure that they're not going to reboot it. That would annoy more people than you know.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




  DL will *never* be rebooted entirely, for two simple reasons: _Chronicles_ and _Legends_. Those products, for better or for worse (I say both, but I'm a former DL heretic and current apostate  ), are the Foundation Stone of Dragonlance, to the point that all three DL game lines to date have ended their runs (or nearly so) with revisiting the classic storyline. 

  I would expect that a 4E DL is likely to consist entirely of or strongly focus around a revisiting of DL1-14.


----------



## Draksila (Sep 18, 2008)

Personally, while not a big fan of the Chaos War, I loved the War of Souls. It shook up the landscape, introduced new religious conflicts and new moral conflicts, and _finally_ passed the torch from the Heroes of the Lance to the new generation. I thought it was long overdue and tastefully done, whereas the Chaos War seemed rushed and half-planned. Granted, I didn't read any books set after the war... outside of the Huma/Kaz books, I haven't read any of the alternate DL authors since _Weasel's Luck_ first came out. If they wanted to start the new campaign setting right after the War of Souls, though, I'd be happy. Besides, I absolutely adore the Klingon-esque minotaurs; the Krynnish version has always been one of my favorite D&D races.

And for the record, kender aren't a bad racial concept. The reason there are a lot of DMs who won't allow them in play is that there are a lot of players out there who just play them as an excuse to be obnoxious. I've had plane-hopping games with kender in them both pre- and post-Planescape, including one large group I DMed for that had two of them. Yes, they added comic relief... but roleplayed maturely they are also a way to look at your fantasy setting through the eyes of youth and wonder. Kender should be optimistic, quick-witted, and constantly amazed at the niftiness of the world around them; this does not necessarily translate to 'glory-hog klepto who TPKs the party,' no matter how many juvenile con-goers have played them that way. The way I've dealt with those who play them disruptively is the same way I deal with anyone else playing an obnoxious character; they don't live long, and have to bring in a wholly new concept.

Of course, I am also the person who allowed one of my best players to reskin the Gungan race as a swamp-dwelling warrior species at war with the local lizardfolk in one of my games. Just because a race _can_ be annoying in play doesn't mean that someone can't breathe enough life into it to make it beauty in motion.

As for tinker gnomes, well... tinker gnomes have become a universal concept in modern fantasy. Look at _Spelljammer_ and _Planescape._ Heck, look at _World of Warcraft_! Tinker gnomes are no longer a strange concept that can only be played for comic relief.

... I grant you that gully dwarves, however, are comic relief. They've never shown up in my stories as anything else, and so are expendable as a concept at my table. Still, I don't ban them... who knows, maybe some day a good player will get ahold of the idea and impress me with it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 18, 2008)

Draksila said:


> Personally, while not a big fan of the Chaos War, I loved the War of Souls. It shook up the landscape, introduced new religious conflicts and new moral conflicts, and _finally_ passed the torch from the Heroes of the Lance to the new generation. I thought it was long overdue and tastefully done, whereas the Chaos War seemed rushed and half-planned.




My problem is not the War of Souls, which I think set Krynn up to be a fun, playable setting. It's the books that followed. The Solamnia trilogy looks like it was set somewhere else and they just changed the names to make it Dragonlance. The other books also just kept rewriting basic krynn concepts at will. Instead of moving forward with the sweeping changes of the War of Souls, they introduced more sweeping changes.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Ares said:


> And it was a very nice adventure, too.  However, most of the fellows that did Dl3e came from the old DL3e website, so compared to "classic" 'lance, it becomes just like the Magius language or like Noble Draconians:  expanded universe aka, largely apocryphal, or to put it in the TVtropes.org way, the Inmates Running the Asylum.




Right. It's terrible when folks who've been fans of the setting since the beginning get together with many of the setting's creators and authors and, with oversight from the owners of the setting's IP, develop the setting further and with consistency. That never turns out well. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> My problem is not the War of Souls, which I think set Krynn up to be a fun, playable setting. It's the books that followed. The Solamnia trilogy looks like it was set somewhere else and they just changed the names to make it Dragonlance. The other books also just kept rewriting basic krynn concepts at will. Instead of moving forward with the sweeping changes of the War of Souls, they introduced more sweeping changes.




There was, believe it or not, a ten-year-plan for the setting developed at the time of War of Souls and for the most part carried out by the authors of the later trilogies such Richard Knaak, Paul Thompson & Tonya Cook, Doug Niles, and Margaret herself. Clearly some of those particular story elements have generated mixed responses (many people don't like the developments in Solamnia, while others are overjoyed at the outcome of Elven Exiles) but overall I think it's come together more or less at this stage.

The real problem with advancing any setting is that you'll get people who wish it would never advance at all, and those who don't think it advanced in the way they would have liked it to. Change is guaranteed to foster frustration and even alienation in some fans, even if it satisfies a pressing need for others.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> (I say both, but I'm a former DL heretic and current apostate  )




Are you still a heretic or apostate if you're the one labeling yourself those terms?  I don't think anybody else has ever referred to you as either.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 18, 2008)

vazanar said:


> FR is doing well due to bieng the only real supplement out for DD 4e and the Living Campaign.



Perhaps so.  All I can say on my end is that the changes made in the switch to 4e have made for a more compelling setting, one that I'm actually interested in adventuring in.  It feels much more like the 2e FR box, which is how I cut my teeth on the setting.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> There was, believe it or not, a ten-year-plan for the setting developed at the time of War of Souls and for the most part carried out by the authors of the later trilogies such Richard Knaak, Paul Thompson & Tonya Cook, Doug Niles, and Margaret herself. Clearly some of those particular story elements have generated mixed responses (many people don't like the developments in Solamnia, while others are overjoyed at the outcome of Elven Exiles) but overall I think it's come together more or less at this stage.
> 
> The real problem with advancing any setting is that you'll get people who wish it would never advance at all, and those who don't think it advanced in the way they would have liked it to. Change is guaranteed to foster frustration and even alienation in some fans, even if it satisfies a pressing need for others.
> 
> ...




The Solamnia trilogy starts with a Solamnia unlike anything in Krynn published to that point. It then follows a threat that is also antithetical to the way Krynn worked at that point. It then introduces Gun Powder, through a long, drawn out and goofy setup, and I just can't see gun powder being unknown to gnomes by that point. 

The Wizards Conclave thing, again, just kind of tosses random elements at the board that look totally alien to the way Krynn had been at that point.

Now, this may all be a grand plan, it may be popular with some folks, and it could just be me, but they drove me from Dragonlance after I had returned.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Are you still a heretic or apostate if you're the one labeling yourself those terms?  I don't think anybody else has ever referred to you as either.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




  Being cut from the paperback is probably a sign of heresy  As for apostasy . . . I have only the most passing interest in Dragonlance, have not bought a DL book in several years, haven't read one since _Dragons of the Dwarven Depths_ (and found it disappointing), and only glanced at _Dragons of the Highlord Skies_ to see what they did with Soth. If not an apostate, I'm almost certainly an ex-fan. 

  Speaking of which, if they do reboot Ravenloft, I would love to see Soth and Sithicus removed from the setting. Too much baggage, and Sithicus is just _dull_ without the Black Rose.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Too much baggage, and Sithicus is just _dull_ without the Black Rose.




Kind of defeats the purpose, yes. Although I have come around to the idea that Soth went to Ravenloft, if only because Jim Lowder presents such a convincing and sound argument.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## ferratus (Sep 18, 2008)

There is a lot of goofy stuff that showed up in the later books.   I mean, let's see how many people who have been away from the setting say WTF? to these plot elements:

1) Takhisis and Paladine died
2) Mina replaced both Paladine & Takhisis as goddess of good and evil simultaneously
3) Shinare replaced Paladine as one of the patrons of the Knights of Solamnia.  Shinare is the neutral goddess of trade.
4) The head of the white robes made a magical roofie for the leader of the Knights of Solamnia to get the girl he wanted.
5) Krynn was stolen and put in a new galaxy, where the gods couldn't find it.
6) After the discovery of gunpowder, people had working battlefield guns within a couple years.

I think saying that people being upset with the way dragonlance has been handled over the years isn't because of a fear of change.  I think people just generally felt that the changes were bad writing and bad setting development.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

ferratus said:


> I think saying that people being upset with the way dragonlance has been handled over the years isn't because of a fear of change.  I think people just generally felt that the changes were bad writing and bad setting development.




I didn't say they were AFRAID of change. I said they either didn't want it to change, or didn't like what happened when it did. It's very common in shared world properties; just look at Star Wars.

Luckily, just like with Star Wars, you can dial back the clock to any time you like with Dragonlance and have about as much fun as is humanly possible. I know this to be objectively true.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2008)

ferratus said:


> There is a lot of goofy stuff that showed up in the later books.   I mean, let's see how many people who have been away from the setting say WTF? to these plot elements:
> 
> 1) Takhisis and Paladine died
> 2) Mina replaced both Paladine & Takhisis as goddess of good and evil simultaneously
> ...



Holy crap! 

That's definitely NOT the Dragonlance I remember.


----------



## Raduin711 (Sep 18, 2008)

I have an opinion too! 

-Kender vs. Halflings: I think there are some pretty significant differences... the resistances to fear, their taunting ability, racial weapon (hoopak!).  When it comes to attitude, the kleptomania of kender is set to 10, where it's probably a 6 or 7 on traditional halflings.  I think it would probably be best to present the Kender as the optional replacement for halflings.  They have a rather infamous reputation at the gaming table, so they will obviously have to address that.  But I don't think it would be fair to just say Kender=Halflings.

-Draconians vs. Dragonborn: Again, this could be presented as an optional replacement race for Dragonborn.  The differences here are much more pronounced, and to be totally faithful to the Draconians of the books may take some doing.  Probably requiring a few feats to accomplish what the books say they can do.

-Revamping: More than likely there will be a revamp involved.  Honestly, if any fans of the setting have trouble with this, one thing to keep in mind is the number of world shattering events that have changed the world forever.  The gods "left" twice.  How many cataclysms have we had? 3? 4?  It has been defined in four different game systems (1e, 2e, SAGA, 3e)  And considering the current state of things in the novels, and the likelyhood *that* will change, with our without 4e's help... This is nothing to worry about.  People will be upset more than likely, but you have to admit this is par for the course in Dragonlance.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 18, 2008)

Raduin711 said:


> -Revamping: More than likely there will be a revamp involved.  Honestly, if any fans of the setting have trouble with this, one thing to keep in mind is the number of world shattering events that have changed the world forever.  The gods "left" twice.  How many cataclysms have we had? 3? 4?  It has been defined in four different game systems (1e, 2e, SAGA, 3e)  And considering the current state of things in the novels, and the likelyhood *that* will change, with our without 4e's help... This is nothing to worry about.  People will be upset more than likely, but you have to admit this is par for the course in Dragonlance.




   Interestingly, the system changes have always come _after_ the novel changes. SAGA was designed after DoSF had been written (and was a shift from the design team's original plan of a streamlined 2E AD&D variant), and the War of Souls was in the works before 3E.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Raduin711 said:


> -Revamping: More than likely there will be a revamp involved.  Honestly, if any fans of the setting have trouble with this, one thing to keep in mind is the number of world shattering events that have changed the world forever.  The gods "left" twice.  How many cataclysms have we had? 3? 4?  It has been defined in four different game systems (1e, 2e, SAGA, 3e)  And considering the current state of things in the novels, and the likelyhood *that* will change, with our without 4e's help... This is nothing to worry about.  People will be upset more than likely, but you have to admit this is par for the course in Dragonlance.




There have been two Cataclysms, although the second is really not a thing like the first, and the first took place before the events of the first trilogy. Indeed, the gods left the first time before the first trilogy began, so if you want to be a stickler for all of this the setting has (since its inception) had three major wars, one of which ended with a world-shaking event (gods leaving, revealed to be the world stolen by Takhisis), and another with the death of one god and the demotion of another to mortal form.

It's somewhat overstating it to attribute constant world-shaking disaster to Dragonlance given that it's not exactly happened that often during its almost 25 year history. Worse has happened to the Forgotten Realms.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Um, Raistlin?
> 
> Surely the very first set of books would translate extremely well to 4e?
> 
> Having not really kept up with the continuity, I'm not familiar with where we are now, but the original storyline of incoming armies, the return of the Gods and so forth would make an excellent 4e "Points of Light" game.




And which of the heroes had martial powers that let them damage multiple enemies at once, or other 4E type attacks?  The heroes were very average.   They weren't superheroes, aside from Raistlin, and even he didn't go that way until after he exited stage left and abandoned the other companions on the Blood Sea.

The feel of Dragonlance has always been different than what you see in 4E.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Actually, check that. What cities are you talking about? The closest thing to a city I can think of was Neraka (which was a ruin from a previous Age) and the army camps set up by Draconians (not ogres or goblins). Ogres and goblins attacked, sacked, and occupied cities (like Vikings on PCP), but I don't recall them building any.
> 
> Are you sure you're talking about Dragonlance? Maybe you were thinking of something else ...




There are definitely ogre and goblin cities.  For that matter, the Draconians even have a city.  And the Minotaurs are empire builders.  The ogre cities are near Khur I believe.  I'd have to go check out the campaign book, but they're definitely there.

There's been a tradition of these other races having civilization since the 1980's, as some of my first Dragonlance modules, that happened *after* the modules tied to the novels, included cities by ogres especially.  The Draconian cities were founded afterwards.  And the minotaurs have always had several.  

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Yes; in 4E we call them "Halflings." (+5 save vs. fear?) Any changes would be purely cosmetic and RP-based, which is better enforced by table rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have all three editions of Dragonlance, and there are gully dwarves as PCs in all of them.  I haven't had a player select one, but they have played tinker gnomes and kender.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> That's a bogus distinction. There isn't only one kind of PoL, with all others are incapable of being a 4E setting.  For one, PoL captures a wide range of possibilities (of which Krynn certainly is one), and for two, PoL is merely the default setting, not the only kind of setting you can use 4E rules in.
> 
> Krynn is PoL "enough" for anyone who doesn't have fixed preconceptions of "only one 'amount' of safety qualifies", and even if it were peaceful fields of happy daisies from Ergoth to Icewall you could still use 4E rules.
> 
> And the existence of one or two "monster" nations does not make all of Krynn free of darkness any more than Wulgar makes Icewind Dale a land full to the brim of peaceful & friendly barbarians.




According to some of these definitions, my home city in Canada is a points of light setting.  I mean, my home's a safe haven, but if I walk out the door, there are annoying vandals, local thieves who keep stealing my garbage bins, 3 blocks from my house I've run across coyotes, had a timber wolf watch me  from the edge of my neighbourhood, and have had to restrain my dog from chasing skunks.  All of these hazards could cause me significant difficulties, danger, or simply varying levels of annoyance, if I wasn't careful.

Who knew?

Seems you can apply points of light to anything 

Banshee


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 18, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> I have all three editions of Dragonlance, and there are gully dwarves as PCs in all of them.  I haven't had a player select one, but they have played tinker gnomes and kender.
> 
> Banshee




My point exactly. The rules were there but it wasn't a serious offer.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> My point exactly. The rules were there but it wasn't a serious offer.




I've heard of players who played them.  Dragonlance seemed to encourage sub-optimal choices in a lot of players I've known.

To each his own.  It was always, to me, a more roleplaying friendly, less dungeoneering style setting than FR, for example.  I liked both settings, for different reasons.

I don't appreciate the carnage done to the realms for 4E, but do think it's probably more of a natural fit.  Dragonlance just feels off....just as I don't think 4E will work with Planescape.....but it would with Dark Sun.  Heck, with Dark Sun, you've even got ways to use the tieflings and dragonborn.  The Dragonborn would simply be Dregoth's transformed people.  I don't remember what they were called.  The tieflings could be mutants or something.

Banshee


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 18, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> .....but it would with Dark Sun.  Heck, with Dark Sun, you've even got ways to use the tieflings and dragonborn.  The Dragonborn would simply be Dregoth's transformed people.  I don't remember what they were called.  The tieflings could be mutants or something.



The Dray. I'd forgotten about the dray. That could work. I'm not so sure about the tieflings. However, as long as the race is changed to fit into the setting instead of the other way around... then that might be okay.

But no gnomes, or orcs. And keep the PoL cosmology away from Athas!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 18, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> And keep the PoL cosmology away from Athas!




I keep seeing this, but...

Part of Athas' schtick was that it was isolated from other planes. The only planar connections, IIRC, were elemental. And for _those_ purposes, the Elemental Chaos works just as well as four separate elemental planes.

So really, why does it matter what cosmology _may_ exist beyond Athas, if Athas can't reach it and isn't affected by it?


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 18, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I can't find any evidence that Wizards said that Dragonlance would be handled in 3e. However, I can find evidence that Dragonlance was explicitly stated to not receive support 4 months after 3e's launch (December 2000, Jim Butler), and it was another year or two before SP picked up the license.



Purely because I spent an inordinate amount of time waiting for an over-full kettle to boil last night while thinking about this, I can assure you that it was. I can visualise in my head right now the Wizards web page which broke the news, but I can't find it anywhere.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> As for DL being a point of light setting, not in the traditional sense.




What traditional sense?  Points of light is still a new concept, so there hasn't been any time to establish a tradition.  Perhaps WotC wants to expand how we define points of light.



Keefe the Thief said:


> The settings hasn´t even been announced and the whining how it is going to be ruined is already starting? Bah! I want Dragonlance, and i want a creative re-imagination! Smash it to pieces and set it together anew! No chaos war crap, no half-hearted continuing of the storyline ("events this summer: Draconian army 34 moves from A to B"). Be creative and agressive about it - i don´t need "slightly changed classic dragonlance." I own that already.





While I have an obvious bias towards the work MWP has done with Dragonlance, I do think that maybe now is the time for some new direction with Dragonlance - so long as it is true to the setting.  I don't think we need another Cataclysm, but perhaps some new villains would be nice.



Remathilis said:


> The Abyss as something more than the CE plane? Check!
> 
> All that Dragonlance would really need to do is explain away tieflings (not hard) and the PHB is good out the door!
> 
> As a bonus: DL would bring Wizard of High Sorcery Paragon Paths, Knight of Solomnia Paragon, Handler Paragon Path, and a bunch of cool stuff.




The Abyss in Dragonlance is not the same as the traditional D&D Abyss.  Tieflings already exist in Dragonlance, per Price of Courage.

I would caution, though, against making the 3e PrCs into paragon paths.  Wizards should already be WoHS well before they reach paragon levels.  I think we can use base classes and provide some nifty powers based on organizations for characters to take.


I'll try to reply more in a bit.  Certainly, you guys have a lot to say where Dragonlance is concerned!


----------



## lrsach01 (Sep 18, 2008)

ferratus said:


> 1) Takhisis and Paladine died
> 2) Mina replaced both Paladine & Takhisis as goddess of good and evil simultaneously
> 3) Shinare replaced Paladine as one of the patrons of the Knights of Solamnia.  Shinare is the neutral goddess of trade.
> 4) The head of the white robes made a magical roofie for the leader of the Knights of Solamnia to get the girl he wanted.
> ...




A bit out of order and these things didn't happen all at once, but the essentials are correct. The thing is... Dragonlance during 3E became a more vibrant setting with stories possible OUTSIDE the original 12 modules. Who REALLY wants to play through the War of the Lance OVER AND OVER again (yeah.. I bought the updated versions... sure me). The Tahkisis, Paladine, Mina thing was done to correct/readjust the whole SAGA/5th Age changes that were in effect... not perfect, but not really BAD. The Solamnic Emperor story made the THAT part of the world interesting again. And the gunpowder stuff is concentrated in the hands of a couple of dwarves and gnomes and can EASILY be gotten rid of by some judicious murders.

Complaining about stories doesn't really lead any where. Do what you want! Hell's Bells! Do you think Ed Greenwood obeys the "official" story line of the Forgotten Realms?  He's SAID he doesn't! His gaming group's PCs have never heard of Maztica, Kara-tur, or Al-qadim. Use what you want and discard the rest. THAT is the coolest thing about role-playing in general and DnD specifically!


----------



## qstor (Sep 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> Oh great, another setting is getting butchered.
> Especially DL doesn't really work with 4E as it has a civilized, if slightly ravaged from war, society and doesn't focus so much on superawesomeheroes with uberleet powerz.





Its more so that they try and shoehorn 4e general stuff into each setting. So now there's tieflings and dragonborn in Dragonlance and the magic system could not revolve around the cycles of Krynn's moons.

Bill Slavicsek has said that each WOTC 4e setting was going to be for 'general' D&D. Dragonlance has a lot of differences that translate into rules mechanic's and if you totally ignore that then _yes_ Dragonlance will get butchered in 4e.

Mike


----------



## ferratus (Sep 18, 2008)

lrsach01 said:


> A bit out of order and these things didn't happen all at once, but the essentials are correct. The thing is... Dragonlance during 3E became a more vibrant setting with stories possible OUTSIDE the original 12 modules.




I'll agree there, but through the release of the sourcebooks.  Particularly the War of the Lance sourcebook.  



> Who REALLY wants to play through the War of the Lance OVER AND OVER again (yeah.. I bought the updated versions... sure me).




See that's what really bugs me.  Dragonlance fans were frustrated for 10 years where the only books released were prequels of the WotL, and no modules were released.  So when they finally did advance the storyline, any criticism of that storyline is seen as wanting to return to the previous way the brand was managed badly.  That's a false dichotomy.  

I'm perfectly fine with the generational move a couple of times, and new villains, creatures, plotlines etc.   What I dislike are ideas that are really bad and damage the brand's enjoyability.  The 5 I mentioned are the really big sins of the current batch of novels.  The 5th Age stinker ideas have largely been cleaned up, and most of the bad prequel novels have been declared non-canonical.   These ideas likewise, should be ashcanned or retconned in some way.



> The Solamnic Emperor story made the THAT part of the world interesting again. And the gunpowder stuff is concentrated in the hands of a couple of dwarves and gnomes and can EASILY be gotten rid of by some judicious murders.




I don't mind the Solamnic Emperor (though I prefer Solamnia as a collection of city states with a common culture and knighthood), nor do I mind the introduction of gunpowder to the setting.   I just think the storyline was really bad.   Have the Order of the White Robes impeached by her fellow members of the conclave, or have her punished for lying about her alignment and all is good again.   Some consequences for the Solamnic leader for being a murderer and a rapist at the hands of some real Solamnic Knights would be good too.



> Complaining about stories doesn't really lead any where. Do what you want! Hell's Bells! Do you think Ed Greenwood obeys the "official" story line of the Forgotten Realms?  He's SAID he doesn't! His gaming group's PCs have never heard of Maztica, Kara-tur, or Al-qadim. Use what you want and discard the rest. THAT is the coolest thing about role-playing in general and DnD specifically!




True, but if they are going to release a Campaign Setting Guide without a plot reboot, I'll undoubtedly just buy the Player's Guide with the rules information.

The only question is which side of the dragonlance fanbase is bigger.  Those that like the storylines and setting changes since WotL, or those that hate them?   Would those that accept the changes still buy a Campaign Guide that cleaved more closely to the classic dragonlance campaign world?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> It's definitely a work in progress—I've had some good feedback from the fans over at the Dragonlance forums already.




I checked it out, and a lot of it looks pretty good to me. I'm concerned about the half-dwarf being slightly more powerful than the regular PHB dwarf, and I think the kender taunt is a bit too powerful, especially because of the sustain capability.

One thought I had was to make it an immediate reaction when an enemy adjacent to you starts its turn, and if you hit, you force it to make a melee basic attack against you (thereby burning it's standard action, and not allowing the use of powers, except ones that count as basics).


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

ferratus said:


> I'm perfectly fine with the generational move a couple of times, and new villains, creatures, plotlines etc.   What I dislike are ideas that are really bad and damage the brand's enjoyability.  The 5 I mentioned are the really big sins of the current batch of novels.




To be fair, it does sound as if you've only read the Solamnic trilogy, which is the one that's had the most controversy surrounding it. You would need to read the others, especially Rick Knaak's ogre titans and Paul and Tonya's Elven Exiles, to get a better picture of what the 10-year-period is supposed to cover.

Very little of the books in the past three or four years are going to be retconned or thrown out. I suspect it will get evened out and made more consistent, if it's covered in any detail, but I wouldn't want to leap into the realm of hypotheses.

And as to what the fan base really wants? I don't think you're going to find that out by reading online message boards.  

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 18, 2008)

Raduin711 said:


> -Kender vs. Halflings: I think there are some pretty significant differences... *the resistances to fear*, their taunting ability, racial weapon (hoopak!).




Did you miss that halflings have a +5 bonus to saving throws against fear effects?


----------



## Ares (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Right. It's terrible when folks who've been fans of the setting since the beginning get together with many of the setting's creators and authors and, with oversight from the owners of the setting's IP, develop the setting further and with consistency. That never turns out well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



If that's what happened then it'd be super.  And if it ever does happen that way, you come and let me know.  'Cuz then I'll be asking for a job!


See, having affectionados or well-wishers in the creative process is fine, but it's the hardcore types that won't resist the opportunity to make their mark in the canon.  As Kevin Smith said on writing Daredevil after Frank Miller, "It's one thing to wear your Dad's shoes, it's quite another to f*** your Mom".
But fanon is not canon, it is fanon, and, at best, Expanded Universe.  Apocryphal.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 18, 2008)

Ares said:


> But fanon is not canon, it is fanon, and, at best, Expanded Universe.  Apocryphal.




Wait, are you saying that material in official published gaming materials, vetted by the creators of the setting and approved by the owners of the property, is fanon?


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Ares said:


> If that's what happened then it'd be super.  And if it ever does happen that way, you come and let me know.




I think I just did let you know. 

Seriously, I don't quite get your implication. You're aware this is a vibrant campaign setting with many authors and contributors, aren't you? And that during the 3.5 era, we did our best—working with Margaret, Tracy, other novelists, and Wizards of the Coast—to bring it together and make it consistent and playable?

I get that people don't like all of it, and once the game books reach your hands you're totally free to do what you want with them, but I think it's a bit much to say it's all apocryphal fanon and ego-stroking.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 18, 2008)

Ares said:


> And I would like to point out to the viewing "audience" what I said on that thread, my dear Dragonhelm, is that this only amounts to an "official rumor" which is an oxymoron.
> You're a great boon to the DL community, but I think you jumped the gun on this one.  This could go south *so* easily.  I'd wait until there was some sort of confirmation from WotC, not necessarily of releasing the setting, but at to least acknowledge that there are talks being finalized.




You're right that plans could easily change.  I don't think we jumped the gun, though.  This is Dragonlance news, and it needed reporting.  If things change, we will report that as well.




> As for Athans' comment, that could very have well been referring to the recent snaffu WotC has had with Weis and Hickman over the novels, right?




Well, he mentioned something about DL being alive and well for the next 25 years and that it was definitely a D&D brand.  



ferratus said:


> On the issue of Dragonlance and 4e, the new edition seems to be relatively well received among the fanbase, and makes it easier to do a lot of dragonlance tropes.




I agree.  For example, a person wanting to play a Knight of the Rose can just play a warlord.  No extra class is needed for that.  In fact, most of the knighthood roles are easily done with base classes.



Irda Ranger said:


> There isn't only one kind of PoL, with all others are incapable of being a 4E setting.  For one, PoL captures a wide range of possibilities (of which Krynn certainly is one), and for two, PoL is merely the default setting, not the only kind of setting you can use 4E rules in.




I wanted to highlight this.  Points of light can definitely take multiple forms.  Also, not every setting has to be a points of light mentality.  The beauty of D&D of any edition is that it is a toolset that can be used to represent a wide variety of games.

Whew!  Got through page 2 of this thread!  That'll teach me to do things like work, sleep...


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I keep seeing this, but...
> 
> Part of Athas' schtick was that it was isolated from other planes. The only planar connections, IIRC, were elemental. And for _those_ purposes, the Elemental Chaos works just as well as four separate elemental planes.
> 
> So really, why does it matter what cosmology _may_ exist beyond Athas, if Athas can't reach it and isn't affected by it?




Not quite. Athas was largely isolated in terms of the outer planes and the Astral due to the Gray and the Black. It still had connections to the elemental planes. But it's an important point to note that the disconnect was mostly in terms of Athasian's getting off of Athas. It was still possible (though very difficult) to have stuff enter Athas (and usually get trapped).

There was a major githyanki impact in Athas's past (the athasian gith are the warped, stranded descendants of that), and Dregoth the undead sorcerer king had an artifact that he'd used to travel the planes.

There were quite a few references to Athas out on the planes.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> I wanted to highlight this.  Points of light can definitely take multiple forms.  Also, not every setting has to be a points of light mentality.  The beauty of D&D of any edition is that it is a toolset that can be used to represent a wide variety of games.




That said, I would argue that Dragonlance was one of the original Points of Light campaign settings. It was certainly set up initially as a sort of post-apocalyptic setting, and most people didn't travel further than their own town or village. Over time, and especially after the various wars, things have changed in that respect, but the feeling is still there.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Luckily, just like with Star Wars, you can dial back the clock to any time you like with Dragonlance and have about as much fun as is humanly possible. I know this to be objectively true.




I'll second this.  I've often said that Dragonlance is a "setting of settings," both in terms of eras of play and locales (i.e. Ansalon, Taladas, Adlatum).  You can play in any time you wish, whether it's the War of the Lance, Chaos War, War of Souls, the fall of Istar, the Third Age, the Third Dragon War, and so on.  You can play on multiple continents, and there are six alternate timelines in _Legends of the Twins_.  There's something fun for everyone!  

What has energized me about Star Wars of late are the expanded eras of play.  I'm somewhat familiar with the Tales of the Jedi materials, but that got expanded with the Knights of the Old Republic games.  So now there's a sourcebook covering that.  Or "The Force Unleashed."  I think there's a Legacy era book too.  Point is, this adds so many new options for Star Wars gaming.  We can do the same with Dragonlance.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 18, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> ...there are six alternate timelines in _Legends of the Twins_.  There's something fun for everyone!




I remember once working out a backstory whereby the Dark Sun world of Athas was actually Krynn, a couple thousand years later, in the timeline where Raistlin killed all the gods.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 18, 2008)

Sure, you can play the WotL era of play even as the storyline of Krynn continues onwards.  You can also play using the setting information in the 3e FRCS rather than the 4e FRCS if you are a fan of that setting.

But you don't really need to buy a Campaign Guide if you feel that the continuity hasn't been kind to what made the campaign setting enjoyable in the first place.  So if there is no reboot that brings Takhisis and Paladine back, brings back one of the elven kingdoms, brings back the Hylar life tree, and brings back Lord Soth etc.  I'm certainly not going to be interested.   I guess the gamble is whether the customer base is interested in the new setting more than the old one.


----------



## Ares (Sep 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I think I just did let you know.
> 
> Seriously, I don't quite get your implication. You're aware this is a vibrant campaign setting with many authors and contributors, aren't you? And that during the 3.5 era, we did our best—working with Margaret, Tracy, other novelists, and Wizards of the Coast—to bring it together and make it consistent and playable?
> 
> ...



I sure everyone did they're best, and I've said nothing but good things about everyone involved in the DL3e project.  That being said, it worries me that there were several times in which stuff was snuck in that had nothing to do with the novels or any other prior gaming materials.  
Now when I saw that stuff I was like "oh my, how clever.  But that's not Dragonlance".   Many of these things came as modifications of earlier DL Nexus stuff.  That is a textbook example of fanon-to-canon.  

I really don't know how I can make myself any clearer.  The DL 3e books were quite clever and nice and nobody is saying otherwise, it just took a few liberties it shouldn't have.  I'm not vilifying anyone, I don't think anyone was sitting around while curling their mustache and snickering, I just think that many of the ol' DL Nexus guys snuck some of their stuff in that had no reference to anything and _that was inappropriate._

One thing that the Dragonlance fanbase strives on is consistency.  Cam said that he doesn't really gauge the message boards (i.e. this one) as a real measure of the fanbase, yet if you look at this thread, the majority of the older fans left DL once it got a little warped.  Comparing it to FR, which has always thrived on change, is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## teitan (Sep 18, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Wanting to get all things DL, I then bought the Tales of the Lance boxed set  (2E) and it was "OK". Not horrible, not brilliant.




Horrible is the right word. Just look at the map and see if you notice anything... out of place... LOL


----------



## lrsach01 (Sep 18, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> I remember once working out a backstory whereby the Dark Sun world of Athas was actually Krynn, a couple thousand years later, in the timeline where Raistlin killed all the gods.




That's actually a pretty good idea. I think I'll steal it.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 18, 2008)

Ares said:


> I sure everyone did they're best, and I've said nothing but good things about everyone involved in the DL3e project.  That being said, it worries me that there were several times in which stuff was snuck in that had nothing to do with the novels or any other prior gaming materials.
> Now when I saw that stuff I was like "oh my, how clever.  But that's not Dragonlance".   Many of these things came as modifications of earlier DL Nexus stuff.  That is a textbook example of fanon-to-canon.




Do you have any examples? I'm keen to know what these non-DL things are.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## carmachu (Sep 18, 2008)

ferratus said:


> See that's what really bugs me.  Dragonlance fans were frustrated for 10 years where the only books released were prequels of the WotL, and no modules were released.  So when they finally did advance the storyline, any criticism of that storyline is seen as wanting to return to the previous way the brand was managed badly.  That's a false dichotomy.



What do you folks really expect?The war of the lance is the iconic part of Dragonlance. Its what made the brand. Without it and much of the  fruit it bore, it wouldnt be popular.Much of the SAGA stuff on wasnt that good. And moved away from what made it good. *shrug*


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 19, 2008)

Ares said:


> And it was a very nice adventure, too.  However, most of the fellows that did Dl3e came from the old DL3e website, so compared to "classic" 'lance, it becomes just like the Magius language or like Noble Draconians:  expanded universe aka, largely apocryphal, or to put it in the TVtropes.org way, the Inmates Running the Asylum.




It's kind of crazy that way.   



> Hell, most of the old fans that got out of DL don't count the Summer of Chaos onwards, as it was that stuff that alienated them from the setting.




Yet many came back with the War of Souls.  Many of the old wounds have healed.  And in any setting, some fans go and new ones hop aboard.



Draksila said:


> Personally, while not a big fan of the Chaos War, I loved the War of Souls. It shook up the landscape, introduced new religious conflicts and new moral conflicts, and _finally_ passed the torch from the Heroes of the Lance to the new generation. I thought it was long overdue and tastefully done, whereas the Chaos War seemed rushed and half-planned.




War of Souls did many things.  It healed many of the rifts in the fan base, creating the foundation for a setting that was whole and complete.  The focus was forced off of Paladine and Takhisis.  All four types of magic exist at one time.  The torch is passed on to new heroes.  The political landscape has changed.

As for the Chaos War, it seems rushed because it was a trilogy packed into a single novel.  Plans changed with that novel, taking the Chronicles II series down to a single volume, which was Chronicles volume 4.  The end result is Dragons of Summer Flame.  



> Besides, I absolutely adore the Klingon-esque minotaurs; the Krynnish version has always been one of my favorite D&D races.




For that, they will spare you.  



> As for tinker gnomes, well... tinker gnomes have become a universal concept in modern fantasy. Look at _Spelljammer_ and _Planescape._ Heck, look at _World of Warcraft_! Tinker gnomes are no longer a strange concept that can only be played for comic relief.




For all the anti-gnome talk, they sure are popular enough.  They're everywhere!  Beyond your mentions, I've seen them in d20 Modern as well as various other places.



> ... I grant you that gully dwarves, however, are comic relief. They've never shown up in my stories as anything else, and so are expendable as a concept at my table. Still, I don't ban them... who knows, maybe some day a good player will get ahold of the idea and impress me with it.




I played a gully dwarf named Bugr (Booger) once.  He died in the Dwarfgate Wars just being the servant of another dwarf who got in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 19, 2008)

We should probably take a closer look at a few things...



ferratus said:


> 2) Mina replaced both Paladine & Takhisis as goddess of good and evil simultaneously




She did not replace them so much as she is an addition to the setting.  Her unique nature means that the Balance is not disrupted.




> 3) Shinare replaced Paladine as one of the patrons of the Knights of Solamnia.  Shinare is the neutral goddess of trade.




Also a goddess of binding contracts.  One such contract would be a social contract - an oath.  The Knights of Solamnia highly respect oaths.  Ergo, she represents oaths to the Solamnic order.

I should also clarify that she didn't replace Paladine in the Solamnic Triumvirate.  Kiri-Jolith became the primary patron of the Knighthood, Habbakuk is still there (though he has a slightly less presence), and Shinare joined the group as the junior member, so to speak, as the goddess of oaths.




> 5) Krynn was stolen and put in a new galaxy, where the gods couldn't find it.




It's in a different point in space.  This could mean a different dimension or crystal sphere.  However, it was never stated that it was another galaxy.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 19, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> The Dray. I'd forgotten about the dray. That could work. I'm not so sure about the tieflings. However, as long as the race is changed to fit into the setting instead of the other way around... then that might be okay.
> 
> But no gnomes, or orcs. And keep the PoL cosmology away from Athas!




Yeah, the Drey, them.  They were actually kind of cool.  Partly just because they were like miniature Dragons of Athas.....and that creature was the creepiest dragon I've seen in any setting.  It just felt...."wrong", and it was so hyper-powerful, it was sick.

The tieflings, I'm not as sure about.

Other stuff though, would concern me.  Like, I wouldn't want to see them inject paladins into the game.  One thing I *didn't* like about WotC's innovations in 3E was that any race/class should fit into any setting, even when it was a poor fit.  I preferred the 2nd Ed. method of creating some of the flavour in a campaign through limitation.  In 4E, it seems like they still want to allow any race or class anywhere.....eladrin in FR?  Sure....just replace gold elves, or rules that they've always been there.  But by doing that, I think they detract from both FR, and the eladrin.  With a race like them, I actually didn't think they were alien enough for 4E.  They're supposed to be an otherworldly race of faerie-lords....but to look at their stats, it sure doesn't seem like it.

Banshee


----------



## Derren (Sep 20, 2008)

Urza said:


> Wow do you not know what you're talking about. 1986... Drizzt kills a white dragon... go look at how many hit points white dragons had in 1e.




And the DL Chronicles were written when? 2003 with 3E being the current setting of D&D?
No, they were written 1984-1985 and had the same low HP dragons which was around when Salvatore started with Drizzt. Yet in the Chronicles no one solos a dragon without an artifact as backup. The full group had a hard time against one black dragon and the only time when a hero tried to attack a dragon alone he got killed in an instant while only inflicting a very minor wound.



Dragonhelm said:


> What traditional sense?  Points of light is still a new concept, so there hasn't been any time to establish a tradition.  Perhaps WotC wants to expand how we define points of light.




With traditional sense I mean the way WotC defines PoL. Where the commoners don't dare to leave their village as travel is dangerous and every village is for itself and when one of them falls no one will notice unless the PCs visit that village.

Except that does not work. Even after the long years of war Krynn is more civilized than that where city states and kingdoms rule the majority of the continent and the danger does not come from wandering bands of monsters no one (except the PCs) can stop, but from armies trying to conquer the land.




qstor said:


> Its more so that they try and shoehorn 4e general stuff into each setting. So now there's tieflings and dragonborn in Dragonlance and the magic system could not revolve around the cycles of Krynn's moons.




Exactly. WotC will try to insert everything from 4E into DL and to do that they will butcher the entire setting as many thing don't fit. It happened in FR and it will happen in DL, except worse as DL is not a kitchen sink like FR and it is even harder to insert 4E mechanic there.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 20, 2008)

Derren said:


> Yet in the Chronicles no one solos a dragon without an artifact as backup. The full group had a hard time against one black dragon and the only time when a hero tried to attack a dragon alone he got killed in an instant while only inflicting a very minor wound.




You mean the companions need to be about 2nd-4th level to take on a black dragon, and they'll have a hard time doing it?

Wow, that seems as if the encounter was tailor made for 4e!  A party of that level, facing a young black dragon, would indeed be in a great deal of trouble in 4e.



> Except that does not work. Even after the long years of war Krynn is more civilized than that where city states and kingdoms rule the majority of the continent and the danger does not come from wandering bands of monsters no one (except the PCs) can stop, but from armies trying to conquer the land.



See, I'd blame that on poor editorial control.  In the beginning of Chronicles travelling around various nations was very limited.  So much so that nobody among the 800 or so refugees knew that Tarsis was no longer a seaport, despite the fact that it was just a couple hundred miles away.

Likewise, nobody knew about the big honking perpetual storm in the Blood Sea among the companions.  No one knew the fate of Xak Tsaroth.  Elves, dwarves and humans all hated each other, and nobody had entered the respective lands of each other in a couple hundred years. Everything was very mysterious and unknown to the adventuring party.

Later books acted as if the state of the world was common knowledge to people and everyone moved around everywhere.  A reboot would be all that is needed to bring the 4e PoL feeling back.



> Exactly. WotC will try to insert everything from 4E into DL and to do that they will butcher the entire setting as many thing don't fit. It happened in FR and it will happen in DL, except worse as DL is not a kitchen sink like FR and it is even harder to insert 4E mechanic there.



FR wasn't butchered because of the edition changes, but the story changes.  

Besides, I wouldn't say it is butchered per say.  It is still a good setting, with lots of variety and story hooks.  It just isn't the same setting that it was.

Also, the person you are replying to, qstor is simply wrong.  There is no reason you can't have magic revolve around Krynn's moons.  Bonuses to arcana checks in rituals, extra castings of ecounter powers, and bonuses to will defenses are a good translation of "increased level, extra spells, and increased saving throw" respectively.  Those are the bonuses you got in 1e when the moons were full and aligned with each other.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 20, 2008)

ferratus said:


> See, I'd blame that on poor editorial control.  In the beginning of Chronicles travelling around various nations was very limited.  So much so that nobody among the 800 or so refugees knew that Tarsis was no longer a seaport, despite the fact that it was just a couple hundred miles away.
> 
> Likewise, nobody knew about the big honking perpetual storm in the Blood Sea among the companions.  No one knew the fate of Xak Tsaroth.  Elves, dwarves and humans all hated each other, and nobody had entered the respective lands of each other in a couple hundred years. Everything was very mysterious and unknown to the adventuring party.




The plainsfolk didn't travel a lot, but they really never said that was because it was unsafe to travel. The book covered the Companions discovering the world, rather than the world. In many ways it was a bit silly, since many of the companions DID go out and explore greatly alone, and still didn't know much.

IIRC, their choice in Tarsis was because other directions were unsafe due to the army coming in, rather than "it's always been full of goblin raiders".

As they get out more, they meet folks that are more traveled and more familiar with a world map and some of that ignorance is discarded to tell a grander story.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 20, 2008)

lrsach01 said:


> Who REALLY wants to play through the War of the Lance OVER AND OVER again (yeah.. I bought the updated versions... sure me). )



I don't know if I would ... BUT "War of the Lance" would make a kickass adventure path in Dungeon.

Actually, if all we got was a "War of the Lance" AP that was set in PoLand (which is not the same as Poland   ), with continents, cities, and personalities from DL but not explicitly on Krynn, that would be cool with me.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 20, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I don't know if I would ... BUT "War of the Lance" would make a kickass adventure path in Dungeon.
> 
> Actually, if all we got was a "War of the Lance" AP that was set in PoLand (which is not the same as Poland   ), with continents, cities, and personalities from DL but not explicitly on Krynn, that would be cool with me.




I think that would make me cry. Plus, it's not supporting the Dragonlance brand in quite the way I suspect Hasbro/WotC wants to.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## qstor (Sep 20, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I can also pretty much be sure that they're not going to reboot it. That would annoy more people than you know.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




No reboot then what are they going to do with tieflings and dragonborn??

Mike


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 20, 2008)

qstor said:


> No reboot then what are they going to do with tieflings and dragonborn??




Not use them?  

As mentioned earlier in the thread, tieflings are already established for DL.  Dragonborn can be 2nd generation draconians.  We don't use halflings in DL; we have kender.  So dragonborn could also be excluded since Dragonlance already has draconians.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 20, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> I have all three editions of Dragonlance, and there are gully dwarves as PCs in all of them.  I haven't had a player select one, but they have played tinker gnomes and kender.




I played a gully dwarf once.  It's challenging playing a character race that is so inherently stupid.



qstor said:


> So now there's tieflings and dragonborn in Dragonlance and the magic system could not revolve around the cycles of Krynn's moons.




Nothing has been decided yet on the races.  As for the magic, it hasn't revolved solely around the moons for many years now.  There are two forms of arcane magic, High Sorcery and Wild Sorcery, and two forms of divine magic, clerical magic and mysticism.  So adding in warlocks and such will be easier than you think.  How the Wizards of High Sorcery deal with the renegade warlocks is the interesting part!



The Little Raven said:


> Did you miss that halflings have a +5 bonus to saving throws against fear effects?




Kender have traditionally been immune to fear, both magical and mundane.  Only in extreme circumstances have they felt "kinda funny."  We've debated a lot on whether the +5 bonus covers it or not.



Dausuul said:


> I remember once working out a backstory whereby the Dark Sun world of Athas was actually Krynn, a couple thousand years later, in the timeline where Raistlin killed all the gods.




I had a friend who came up with a similar thing.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 20, 2008)

Ares said:


> I sure everyone did they're best, and I've said nothing but good things about everyone involved in the DL3e project.  That being said, it worries me that there were several times in which stuff was snuck in that had nothing to do with the novels or any other prior gaming materials.
> Now when I saw that stuff I was like "oh my, how clever.  But that's not Dragonlance".   Many of these things came as modifications of earlier DL Nexus stuff.  That is a textbook example of fanon-to-canon.




As the guy behind the Nexus, I take exception to this.  There is no reason why new ideas can't make it into DL, especially when those ideas are being approved by the creators of the setting as well as Wizards of the Coast.  If those ideas originate from fandom, then that means only one thing - they were good ideas.



> I just think that many of the ol' DL Nexus guys snuck some of their stuff in that had no reference to anything and _that was inappropriate._





I also take exception to the idea that we fans-done-good somehow were "sneaking" things in.  In some cases, they were requested.  The War of the Darklance alternate timeline in _Legends of the Twins_ was requested, for example.

And again, nothing wrong with original ideas, so long as they fit the setting and are approved by the Powers That Be (tm).


----------



## Warrior147 (Aug 10, 2009)

I wonder which era the setting will play in, because the era in wich most Dragonlance books are set in is dominated by massive, worldwide wars, most notably the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, and the War of Souls. To allow the heroes to gain any fame, it would have to be set after the war of souls, which isn't very original to the dragonlance setting, or in the Age of Dreams, Light, Might, or Dispair, which would be a copy of the dragonlance time leap.

Long live the Lance!


----------



## amethal (Aug 10, 2009)

Warrior147 said:


> I wonder which era the setting will play in, because the era in wich most Dragonlance books are set in is dominated by massive, worldwide wars, most notably the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, and the War of Souls. To allow the heroes to gain any fame, it would have to be set after the war of souls, which isn't very original to the dragonlance setting, or in the Age of Dreams, Light, Might, or Dispair, which would be a copy of the dragonlance time leap.
> 
> Long live the Lance!



Did you notice the dates on the posts in this thread?

As far as I am aware, WotC will be announcing their new setting very shortly at Gen Con. Dragonlance is one of the favourites, but it is all speculation at this point.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 10, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> There have been two Cataclysms, although the second is really not a thing like the first, and the first took place before the events of the first trilogy. Indeed, the gods left the first time before the first trilogy began, so if you want to be a stickler for all of this the setting has (since its inception) had three major wars, one of which ended with a world-shaking event (gods leaving, revealed to be the world stolen by Takhisis), and another with the death of one god and the demotion of another to mortal form.
> 
> It's somewhat overstating it to attribute constant world-shaking disaster to Dragonlance given that it's not exactly happened that often during its almost 25 year history. Worse has happened to the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> ...




The War of the Lance series paints a believable picture of a damaged society slowly recovering from the Catalcysm and then adapting to the shock of the War of the Lance.

Whereas, the Chaos Wars and War of Souls completely fails to suspend my disbelief. It was atrocious the way it glossed over the impact of so much trauma and upheaval. It's simply heart-wrenching the way the people of Krynn were betrayed in such a short time span.

Imagine if we, in the real world, were just recovering from a subprime loan crisis and recession, and all of a sudden, we face World War III and governments across the world are replaced with tyrants, immediately followed by World War IV, while God/Allah/etc. officially withdrew from humanity and then returned and then withdrew and then returned again, destroying the faith of every member of every church and synagogue and mosque and temple in the world, and meanwhile, major new discoveries in science and technology turned out to be wrong and inoperative, and entire career paths and organizations (clergy, scientists, government) turned upside down. But after all these crises in war and religion and mutations in the very fabric of society, we're still kind of OK and society remains more or less functioning.

As for the Forgotten Realms, it was never really believable to begin with. 
War of the Lance was a believable fantasy setting though until the Fifth Age hit the fan.


----------



## Cam Banks (Aug 10, 2009)

NoWayJose said:


> The War of the Lance series paints a believable picture of a damaged society slowly recovering from the Catalcysm and then adapting to the shock of the War of the Lance.
> 
> Whereas, the Chaos Wars and War of Souls completely fails to suspend my disbelief. It was atrocious the way it glossed over the impact of so much trauma and upheaval. It's simply heart-wrenching the way the people of Krynn were betrayed in such a short time span.




The Chaos War was a generation after the War of the Lance. The War of Souls was a generation after that. While I agree that more could have been done to emphasize the aftershocks of these events, I don't buy into the "short time span" thing.

Think about it. If the War of the Lance was World War II or 1945, then the Cataclysm happened in 1600. The Chaos War would have happened in 1986, and the War of Souls in 2025.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 10, 2009)

Cam Banks said:


> The Chaos War was a generation after the War of the Lance. The War of Souls was a generation after that. While I agree that more could have been done to emphasize the aftershocks of these events, I don't buy into the "short time span" thing.
> 
> Think about it. If the War of the Lance was World War II or 1945, then the Cataclysm happened in 1600. The Chaos War would have happened in 1986, and the War of Souls in 2025.
> 
> ...




Oops, I guess you know much better than me about the timeline. When I read the books, it didn't seem as if much time had passed, since the surviving Heroes of the Lance still bridged the gap between trilogies and had not aged that much, so it all seemed to be happening to me within a couple decades.

Nevertheless, in the Age of Mortals, we are talking about major trauma to the very fabric of society. People often argue that African nations never truly recovered from colonial times, and that's just the consequence of war and slavery and politics. Now imagine an alternative timeline where every African believes that God is Dead and that their culture and tradition and science has changed overnight, and then do that all over again 40 years later, in the midst of tyrannical rulership and continental warfare. How long would it take that African society as a whole to return to a semblance of normality? That could be comparable to what happened in Dragonlance.

Anyway, I didn't intend to get bogged down with real life comparisons, but I want to emphasize how believable and evocative was the War of the Lance, and how the Age of Mortals felt like a bunch of baloney to me, IMO.


----------



## Cam Banks (Aug 10, 2009)

Oh sure, I get the complaint, and I agree.

In many ways, I think it'd be interesting to look at the troublesome section of the Dragonlance timeline and reboot THAT, rather than simply go back to the War of the Lance again.

In other words, take the Chaos War and map it out as a multi-part adventure path with multiple endings, really bring in the epic nature of it and the traumatic outcomes.

I would point to Key of Destiny/Spectre of Sorrows/Price of Courage, however, as a way to go from 1st to 20th level and get right to the heart of the effects of wide-reaching power, events, and godlike interference. And that's an Age of Mortals campaign.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## ferratus (Aug 10, 2009)

Aside from the fact that the War of the Lance has been done to death in novels and adventures, we just got a 3e update to the Chronicles modules a couple years ago done by Cam Banks and others when it was licensed to MWP.

The Chaos War redone would be a fairly interesting setting, since you could reboot the 5A stuff which (while it has its fans, as everything does) was generally not very well received by the wider DL fanbase.  However, the Chaos War is an apocalyptic campaign, which is hard to undo if it is done.  It works better as a potential future threat.   What campaign storyline could match the end of the world in importance?   WotC shared world strategy these days is just to release a Player's Guide, and Campaign Setting and an Adventure Book.  I suppose that means one wouldn't have to worry about any post-apocolyptic cleanup... but then what do you do when you want to revive the DL property for 5e?

I think the best time for DL adventuring would be the 2nd Generation anthology.   You have 25+ years of distance between the War of the Lance and the current time and the Knights of Nereka(Takhisis) were built up very effectively as a larger threat than the dragonarmies had been a generation before.  In this way the setting is like Eberron, which also has a great war behind them but the potential for a greater and more devastating war on the horizon.   This time period would also make the original Chronicles  novels serve as a good introduction to the setting, while they were largely useless in terms of introducing new players to the Age of Mortals Dragonlance unless they also read at least 10 other books.

Most of all though, the 2nd generation anthology was the last time DL storyline seemed to be moving forward with almost all of the DL fanbase on board.  There are fans of certain ideas that came afterward, but nearly every fan has something that they absolutely loathe about the storylines that came afterward.

I do love your idea of giving hints of what might happen in the future rather than a hard direction for the setting, because that would also allow WotC to salvage the 5th Age and Age of Mortals novels that they have already written, and keep them as canonical parts of the setting.   So use the 2nd Generation time period as the time period for the game materials, and then have a paragraph describing the branches on the River of Time that might make up Krynn's future:

The Conquest of the Dark Knights - The Dark Knights lie in wait waiting for the chance to to gather the forces of Darkness together and conquer Krynn in the name of their Dark Queen.  Will your characters be able to stop them through commanding legions, or will you have to struggle to overthrow their tyranny as a hidden resistance? Recommended Reading: Dragons of Summer Flame, Palanthas SAGA supplement.

The Ascendancy of the Dragon Overlords - Dragons are already among the mightiest of Krynn's creatures but some lust for even more power.  Secret, blasphemous rites exist for amassing power by assembling the skulls of their enemies in giant totems that will give the survivors god-like strength and absolute mastery over the realms they claim.   Recommended Reading: Dragons of a New Age.   

The Death of Takhisis - The Dark Queen has always been ambitious and overreaching, and has felt the pain of Huma's Lance as a price for that ambition.  Will your characters be the ones to end her life once and for all, and which god or goddess will arise to restore the balance? Recommended Reading: Dragons of a Vanished Moon, Amber and Iron.

The Chaos War - The Greygem is Krynn's most powerful artifact, but little do people realize that it is also the key for unleashing the mightiest primordial of the Elemental Chaos, the Father of All and Nothing.  Can any heroes face the end of Krynn itself? Recommended Reading: Dragons of Summer Flame.

So there you have the Age of Mortals and the 5th Age acknowledged as a part of DL canon, so you don't annoy the minority fanbase and novel collectors, but you keep the best era for gaming in because it appeals to the widest segment of the fanbase and doesn't require nearly so much backstory to introduce new players.  Not to mention the 5th Age designers weren't nearly so respective of setting themes and canon as we might have liked, given you had to basically come back and try to knit it all back together so it made sense.   Having the alternate futures allows the novels to be presented as one way the history of Krynn could unfold, while still giving the DL DM's the freedom to introduce some cool world shaking ideas in a manner that is consistent with their own view of the setting.


----------



## lrsach01 (Aug 11, 2009)

Cam! Nice example of the passage of time. I'm a FAN of Dragonlance (half way through running Price of Courage now) and I never really put together the span of years.


----------



## LiquidKing (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't know if there would still exist some interest in this thread, but I'd like to present some thoughts.

I was thinking about a new release of DL under the new rules after I'd taken a look at the new Dark Sun campaign setting which, as you may know, was reseted to somewhen before the killing of the dragon of Tyr (and some other SK), and I don't think that should happen to DL. I didn't really understand the re-release of the prism pentad series for by the last volume we are presented with the mentioned assassination of Borys... and then you read the Campaign Setting and go completely WTF!

I don't think that should happen to dragonlance, which builds so much around the novels (trilogies). You see, after the brilliant stories from Pierson, Knaak, Thompson, Mary Herbert and, of course, mrs Weis in the AoM, I think the Cataclysmic wars are at bay. Revisiting the old "Dragonlance adventures" and the tales of the lance boxed set it came to me that the setting has much to offer as it is, and even more than before. But the 3e material lacks something  the 2e material was plenty of, something about organization and presentation. The 3e material centered too much in "the world that was" and confused many newcomers to the setting. Many already dead characters of Krynn were presented for what they was, but with little interest for the world that is. Well, if the world advances 20 years after the elven exiles trilogy it may be possible to center around "the world that is" which, for the players, is what really matters to a campaign. The world that may be is the opportunity of development, and the world that was (including the WoL, CW and WoS) is flavour and meaning. Those who wishes to deepen this flavours have lots of novels at disposal.

Well, that's it.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 18, 2010)

Welcome to the boards!  If you want to talk more about Dragonlance, we have a wonderful forum at DragonlanceForums.com dedicated to just that.

You make a good point, which is that Dragonlance could stand to have a new entry point.  Right now, to get caught up to the current time, you have to read something like 20 books.  That's vastly overwhelming to new fans.

The problem, though, is that the most popular era of the setting is the War of the Lance, and the entry point is the Holy Six - Chronicles and Legends.  Those series are so popular that it's hard to believe any other series taking their place as an entry point.

There are a few options...

1.  WotC could reset the timeline, ala Star Trek, to just after Legends.  That probably wouldn't go over well, as it may be perceived as invalidating novels, and causing confusion.

2.  WotC could just revisit the WotL and leave the future open.  Possibly invalidates novels.  

3.  WotC could go the Ultimates route.  Invalidates novels, including Chronicles and Legends.  

4.  Time jump.  Dragonlance has been there and done that with the Fifth Age products, which landed up splitting the fan base (though part of that is the switch to the SAGA rules).  You also have the entry point issue.

No matter which way they go, there will be some issue.  I can see certain benefits to some, as well as drawbacks.

I do hope that we will see a 4th edition Dragonlance someday.  While the Margaret Weis Productions era is considered the golden era of Dragonlance gaming by many fans, there are still a lot of good things WotC can do with the setting.

Dragonlance fans are chomping at the bit, awaiting the return of their beloved setting, and for the return of Dragonlance novels.


----------



## delericho (Sep 18, 2010)

In all honesty, Dragonlance doesn't feel like a great match for 4e. Also, it suffers from being a bit too "vanilla fantasy" - FR and the default setting would seem to have that covered pretty well, and have more market presence as well. Finally, DL suffers from the same issues as Star Wars - the Heroes of the Lance feel like "the stars of the show", which makes it difficult to make room for the PCs in the campaign.

(And with the added issues of post-War of Souls not feeling like classic Dragonlance all that much, yet any previous era makes it a prequel, and prequels suck.)

Now, all that said, if they are going to do DL for 4e, my vote would be to go down the reboot route (as, frankly, they should have done with FR). Reboot back to the start of the War of the Lance, present Solace as the starting town/point of light, and go from there. For gaming purposes, remove Tanis, Raistlin and the rest from the setting entirely.

But that's just me.


----------



## delericho (Sep 18, 2010)

Dragonhelm said:


> While the Margaret Weis Productions era is considered the golden era of Dragonlance gaming by many fans, there are still a lot of good things WotC can do with the setting.




This is certainly true.



> Dragonlance fans are chomping at the bit, awaiting the return of their beloved setting, and for the return of Dragonlance novels.




Though in my case, I considered "Dragons of the Hourglass Mage" to be an ideal ending for the novel series. It had a really good run, but I'm not sure how best WotC could use the setting (for novels).


----------



## delericho (Sep 18, 2010)

LiquidKing said:


> I was thinking about a new release of DL under the new rules after I'd taken a look at the new Dark Sun campaign setting which, as you may know, was reseted to somewhen before the killing of the dragon of Tyr (and some other SK), and I don't think that should happen to DL. I didn't really understand the re-release of the prism pentad series for by the last volume we are presented with the mentioned assassination of Borys... and then you read the Campaign Setting and go completely WTF!




TSR (as was) made a terrible mistake with Dark Sun in publishing the Prism Pentad at all. Amusingly, they actually warn against doing exactly what they did (present a detailed setting, and then immediately trash it) in the "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide"!

WotC were therefore right to reboot that setting back to just after the first novel. It's just unfortunate that they then rereleased the offending Prism Pentad, where they would have been better off matching the reboot with a new line of novels. Oh well, can't have everything I guess.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 18, 2010)

delericho said:


> WotC were therefore right to reboot that setting back to just after the first novel. It's just unfortunate that they then rereleased the offending Prism Pentad, where they would have been better off matching the reboot with a new line of novels. Oh well, can't have everything I guess.




   The Prism Pentad rerelease was probably a priming the pump for DS at fairly low cost, and taking advantage of the fact that Troy Denning is now a fairly big name in SF due to his role as a key author on recent Star Wars novels.

  But the new DS novels start coming out next month, with [ame="http://www.amazon.com/City-Under-Sand-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956232/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284836970&sr=1-9"]City Under the Sand[/ame] by Jeff Mariotte, and then [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Under-Crimson-Sun-Abyssal-Plague/dp/0786957972/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284836970&sr=1-1"]Under the Crimson Sun[/ame] by Keith R. A. DeCandido (whose Star Trek books tend to be quite good) next June.

  Back onto the original topic . . . I'm not sure what can be done with Dragonlance. I'd be inclined to go back to what some members of the Fifth Age team would have done had they had no directives from management--a standalone game using a streamlined version of the D&D rules, set in the WotL or post-WotL era. However, I think a confluence of numerous issues has made WotC even less inclined to do something with DL than they otherwise would be.


----------



## delericho (Sep 18, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The Prism Pentad rerelease was probably a primping the pump for DS at fairly low cost, and taking advantage of the fact that Troy Denning is now a fairly big name in SF due to his role as a key author on recent Star Wars novels.




Even if they'd only rereleased the first novel, which pretty much takes us to the start of the new setting books, that would have been better. Still, I suppose they'd might as well sell five novels instead of one. 



> I'd be inclined to go back to what some members of the Fifth Age team would have done had they had no directives from management--a standalone game using a streamlined version of the D&D rules, set in the WotL or post-WotL era.




That would be awesome.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 20, 2010)

delericho said:


> TSR (as was) made a terrible mistake with Dark Sun in publishing the Prism Pentad at all. Amusingly, they actually warn against doing exactly what they did (present a detailed setting, and then immediately trash it) in the "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide"!
> 
> WotC were therefore right to reboot that setting back to just after the first novel. It's just unfortunate that they then rereleased the offending Prism Pentad, where they would have been better off matching the reboot with a new line of novels. Oh well, can't have everything I guess.




I disagree that the novels were ever a mistake . . . back in the day or more recently.  I enjoyed the hell out of them, and while they did change the setting significantly from the initial boxed set, they never impinged upon my enjoyment of the Dark Sun setting or my ability to run a Dark Sun game.  As far as "canon" goes, I just saw the novels as an "example" campaign.  My players faced many of the same challenges, but with different choices and different results.  I never understood all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over them.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 20, 2010)

delericho said:


> In all honesty, Dragonlance doesn't feel like a great match for 4e.




Heh, not trying to pick on you today Delericho!  But I disagree here also.  I think a good game design team could easily do a fantastic job with a 4e Dragonlance . . . and while it certainly is a "standard" epic fantasy campaign, it's also a classic and would do well.

I'd love to see two books for a 4e Dragonlance reboot.  The first book would be the standard campaign book, but rebooted back to the beginning of the War of the Lance.  No separate player's book.  I wouldn't reprint the entire original module series yet again, but I would use them as the basis for campaign advice in this book.

The second book would be a "companion" campaign book, offering all of the options and information to run a DL campaign in any era, including the "current" era . . . which I would advance a bit beyond the most recent RPG books released.  No separate monster book, just have all iconic DL monsters spread out between the two books.  The two books wouldn't even have to be released back-to-back, but could be spread out a bit.

Oh, and playable Draconians using Dragonborn rules and some new feats in the second book!  And themes, like Dark Sun uses.  Maybe: Priest of the Holy Stars (Divine Theme), Mage of the Three Orders (Arcane Theme), Solamnic Knights (Divine Theme) . . . and maybe Nerakan Knight (Martial Theme), Renegade Mage (Arcane) . . . . I can think of more ideas I'd want to see as themes than as prestige classes!

And I'd tie in the new game releases with a new animated series based on the original series . . . . that didn't suck like the last one we got.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Sep 20, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Heh, not trying to pick on you today Delericho!  But I disagree here also.  I think a good game design team could easily do a fantastic job with a 4e Dragonlance . . . and while it certainly is a "standard" epic fantasy campaign, it's also a classic and would do well.





My initial thought was that 4th edition wasn't the best fit for Dragonlance.  It's a world designed around AD&D tropes.  When we updated Dragonlance to 3.5, there were a few bumps, but it turned out to be a good fit for DL.  I still say that Dragonlance is a great world for showcasing how prestige classes can be put to best effect.

As I delved into Dragonlance 4e for the Dragonlance Nexus, I was seeing a lot of great connections and opportunities.  4th edition does work for DL.  We just have to view DL through the "lens" of 4th edition.



> Oh, and playable Draconians using Dragonborn rules and some new feats in the second book!




Yes, I think using the dragonborn as a foundation for draconians is the way to go.  It might even be an opportunity to showcase the noble draconians a bit more.




> And themes, like Dark Sun uses.  Maybe: Priest of the Holy Stars (Divine Theme), Mage of the Three Orders (Arcane Theme), Solamnic Knights (Divine Theme) . . . and maybe Nerakan Knight (Martial Theme), Renegade Mage (Arcane) . . . . I can think of more ideas I'd want to see as themes than as prestige classes!




Themes are one of the best innovations from Dark Sun, and something I want to implement into Dragonlance.  I've had similar ideas to yours, though some wouldn't work out as well.  

Consider that a theme is open to any class.  So when we seek to apply a theme for Solamnic or Nerakan Knights, ask yourself if you want them to include classes that don't fit the archetype.  A primal knight?  That's a tough one.

Steel Legionnaire would make a good theme, though.  The Legion of Steel takes in all types, so having a primal or psionic Legionnaire works perfectly.

Wizard of High Sorcery can work, though I would consider an exception to the rule and have a prerequisite of any arcane class. This is a little different than how 3.5 handled arcane classes, but it can be fun.

Noble and mariner are both backgrounds currently, but they were also classes for Dragonlance in 3.5.  It's possible they may make good themes too.

I'm really excited by the idea of a mystic theme.  In 3.5 it was a class, which was to the cleric what the sorcerer was to the wizard.  However, back in the SAGA days, the mystic covered inner divine power and the divine power of life.  Magic was divided into "spheres," much like how cleric magic was in AD&D.  These spheres, in 4e terms, cover the divine, primal, and psionic power sources.  So as a theme, the mystic can replicate some of the feel of the SAGA mystic.  

I'd love to hear more ideas.  I'm trying to work up some 4e conversions and would like to hear more.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 20, 2010)

Dragonhelm said:


> Consider that a theme is open to any class.  So when we seek to apply a theme for Solamnic or Nerakan Knights, ask yourself if you want them to include classes that don't fit the archetype.  A primal knight?  That's a tough one.




Not sure my off-the-cuff ideas are the best way to go, but if you look at how the Dark Sun themes are designed, they are open to any class, but are designed to fit certain classes or power sources.  Templars are ideally warlocks with the sorcerer-king pact, but other arcane classes work well too.  And a character with another power source can become a templar, but it's weird and should be a unique character story.  A primal templar?  Weird, but can be done.

A _Mage of High Sorcery_ theme would be designed to be ideal for wizards . . . but would also work well for any arcane class.  And since the theme powers themselves would be arcane spells, any other class that takes the theme would then become an arcane spellcaster, if in a limited fashion.  So a martial or primal Mage of High Sorcery?  Yes, weird, but could be done (well, if designed that way, of course).

I'm not as familiar with later versions of Dragonlance as I'd like to be, but I remember thinking . . . so, if you're a wizard, you better sign up with the three orders or they'll grief ya until the end of your days . . . but if you're a bard, you're okay despite your arcane spellcasting.  In both 3e and 4e that would become more problematic, as there are several arcane spellcasting classes beyond wizard and bard.

Similar ideas behind other DL themes too, such as any sort of martial or other warriors signing up with the Solamnic Knights (or Nerakans, or Legionaires).  For the knighthoods I'd have a theme for each order, "Solamnic Knight", and tiered feats that unlock theme powers with feat prereqs.  Initially, all your Solamnic Knight theme powers would be martial.  But take the "Sword Knight" feat and then later the "Rose Knight" feat, and you open up divine theme powers with these feats as prereqs.

Yeah, and I think Noble and Mariner would make good themes too.


----------

