Explain Dragonlance to a mainly 4e guy

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
I hear a lot about Dragonlance which I know is a old D&D campaign setting, but what made it different to any other ordinary campaign setting? Did it have modified rules or different character classes?

Can anyone give me a concise answer in a few sentances?

Thanks in advance.
Dragons were a big deal and warriors rode on them stabbing each other with fancy lances.  Wizards were highly regluated by aligment into different colored orders.  It had gully dwarves, who were mentally challenged gnome/dwarf hybrids.  Kenders were halflings, but more annoying.  And there were minotaurs.
Most importantly, it had really well written books, or so I felt at the time, when I was like 13, or whatever, especially compared to other D&D books.

The original Dragonlance trilogy was outstanding.
Dragons were a big deal and warriors rode on them stabbing each other with fancy lances.  Wizards were highly regluated by aligment into different colored orders.  It had gully dwarves, who were mentally challenged gnome/dwarf hybrids.  Kenders were halflings, but more annoying.  And there were minotaurs.


Surely dragons are always a big deal and there are always minotaurs in some players supplement  The rest sounds interesting though.

I thought I read somewhere that dragonlance would be impossible to do under 4e. Is that correct? If so, why?
It would not be impossible to do, but the appeal would probably be lost on many current players. Dragonlance was a big deal for its time by veering from the D&D world status quo. The window of innovation has moved quite a bit since then, so Dragonlance looks quite a bit more generic than it did in the 80's.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
Dragons were a big deal and warriors rode on them stabbing each other with fancy lances.  Wizards were highly regluated by aligment into different colored orders.  It had gully dwarves, who were mentally challenged gnome/dwarf hybrids.  Kenders were halflings, but more annoying.  And there were minotaurs.


Surely dragons are always a big deal and there are always minotaurs in some players supplement  The rest sounds interesting though.

I thought I read somewhere that dragonlance would be impossible to do under 4e. Is that correct? If so, why?


The only thing I can think of that would be difficult to do is the alignment restrictions of the orders of Wizards.  Restricting alignment was something that wasn't looked nicely upon in 4e development, but if it's a big deal, they could do it.

I'm truly unable to wrap my head around why it would be impossible.  It sounds to me that's just some Grognard talk.

Kenders were just halflings with kleptiomania, and everyone hates them because not only could people play a chaotic jerkwad and say "But I'm roleplaying my alignment!"; now they could say "But I'm roleplaying my alignment AND my race!"


 
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Our explanations will be biased, ad hoc, and incomplete. The Wikipedia entry is pretty complete, accurate, and impartial.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Our explanations will be biased, ad hoc, and incomplete. The Wikipedia entry is pretty complete, accurate, and impartial.


Yeah I had a look at that, but it mainly just mentions locations and characters, and I wondered how it was mechanically different.
Our explanations will be biased, ad hoc, and incomplete. The Wikipedia entry is pretty complete, accurate, and impartial.


Yeah I had a look at that, but it mainly just mentions locations and characters, and I wondered how it was mechanically different.


To be frank, unless there is something I'm not remembering, there was nothing mechanically different from Dragonlance than the "Vanilla" 3.5 setting.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Dragons were a big deal and warriors rode on them stabbing each other with fancy lances.  Wizards were highly regluated by aligment into different colored orders.  It had gully dwarves, who were mentally challenged gnome/dwarf hybrids.  Kenders were halflings, but more annoying.  And there were minotaurs.


Surely dragons are always a big deal and there are always minotaurs in some players supplement  The rest sounds interesting though.

I thought I read somewhere that dragonlance would be impossible to do under 4e. Is that correct? If so, why?



Dragonlance actually had the first playable Minotaurs when they released a boxed set for the continent of Taladas.

I think the main reason for all of the people wanting a 4E Dragonlance is due to nostalgia. The original six books written by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were some of the first D&D novels written, and, at the time, were considered well written. I don't think the books hold up quite as well against current fantasy fiction (I read them when I was twelve or thirteen, it could simply be that my tastes have matured). Even Weis and Hickman's later, non-Dragonlance, work is miles better than their Dragonlance work (the Darksword Trilogy, the Star of the Guardians, the Rose of the Prophet and the Death Gate Cycle are all superior books, where Weis & Hickman seem to backslide every time they return to Krynn).

The reason some people say that Dragonlance would be impossible under 4E is that the setting was highly alignment dependant. Each Order of the Stars, Order of Knighthood and Order of High Sorcery had their own alignment requirements and power restrictions. These elements gave the game world much of its (then) unique flavor. Now that 4E has Themes, I think that a lot of these Orders could be better realized as Themes than they would be as class builds or subclasses. The other thing that distinguished Dragonlance at the time was that Clerics and Paladins were rare by design. The gods had been largely absent for the last 500 years or so. Unlike Dark Sun, however, the gods were still concerned with the world and wished to return from their self imposed exile.

My main objection to Dragonlance is similar to my main objection to the Forgotten Realms pre-4E and Star Wars campaigns set during the Rebellion. The original Dragonlance modules came with pregenerated characters of the heroes of the novels (the Heroes of the Lance, as they came to be known), and it was expected that players would play through the story with those characters. The actions of the main characters are considered canon, and they changed and influenced the world. What chance does a PC have to match the accomplishements of Luke Skywalker, Drizz't do'Urden or Raistlin Majere? The PCs wind up being supporting characters in the story of the world, while the NPCs are the real protagonists.

While other franchises have done a good job of making the PCs important (Star Wars set in the Old Republic and the new Forgotten Realms - much improved, by why is Drizz't still alive), every attempt to advance the Dragonlance timeline have met with failure because most of the Heroes of the Lance are still alive (or their children have taken over their places) and the subsequent books that demand to be published also become canon and, consequently, relagate the PCs to supporting cast status again.

There are two ways I would be okay with seeing Dragonlance set up for 4E. The first would be during the War of the Lance, but with no mention of the Heroes of the Lance. They simply did not exist. The second would be before, during and after the Cataclysm, when the gods cut themselves off from the world. This would create a very interesting and morally grey setting. The highest force for good in the world, the Kingpriest of Istar, was gradually falling from grace. His pride and arrogance overtook his piety and common sense. As such, the world was being ruled by a good man who became a tyrant. Do the players support the established order of a man they probably still believe to be good, or do they see that he has fallen from the path and stand against him? Under no circumstances do I want to see new Dragonlance novels published to support a new setting until AFTER the setting has been published, that way the PCs have the chance to become the heroes of the setting, and the novels will provide an alternate history of the setting.

Draconians.  Think dragonborn, but meaner.

Celebrate our differences.


Draconians.  Think dragonborn, but meaner.



And they explode when they die. Or turn to stone.
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
Our explanations will be biased, ad hoc, and incomplete. The Wikipedia entry is pretty complete, accurate, and impartial.


Yeah I had a look at that, but it mainly just mentions locations and characters, and I wondered how it was mechanically different.


To be frank, unless there is something I'm not remembering, there was nothing mechanically different from Dragonlance than the "Vanilla" 3.5 setting.



The things I remember off hand from 3.5 setting book, the biggest would be they specifically ruled that magical healing could only be accomplished by divine power source (so the bard lost all it's cure spells). In 4e that would basically be stripping most of the leader classes out, though possibly it could be toned down to just requiring divine power source for all Restoration rituals (so raising the dead and curing afflictions would be divine only, while you could still restore HP by other means).
Draconians were a major new race in dragonlance which eventually became playable in 3.5. In 4e we have stats for them (including new varieties that don't quite fit the original dragonlance origin story) as monsters at least. They were always kinda iffy as a PC race, even beyond the usual 'good monster' issues, because their most distinctive special ability is that their corpses self destruct in various ways, which among other things makes them immune to typical raise dead abilities. 4e at least has a large enough spread between dying and dead that that can be kept from coming up too often. 

Other races often had minor tweaks that would be within the range of what you see in other settings.    

Draconians.  Think dragonborn, but meaner.



And they explode when they die. Or turn to stone.


And acid blood.  All different flavors to suit a DM's mood. 

Celebrate our differences.

And I can't believe no one has brought up Lord Soth yet.  He was an amazing character.

Celebrate our differences.

Draconians.  Think dragonborn, but meaner.


I would have thought if Dragonlance was hypothetically re-imagined, dragonborn would fill this role perhaps, since they didn't exist before 4e?

Sorry I didn't mean to turn this into a 4e dragonlance thread, I was just curious about the game specifics. 

Draconians.  Think dragonborn, but meaner.


I would have thought if Dragonlance was hypothetically re-imagined, dragonborn would fill this role perhaps, since they didn't exist before 4e?

Sorry I didn't mean to turn this into a 4e dragonlance thread, I was just curious about the game specifics. 




The game specifics:

For the first time, Clerics were required to worship a single deity.

New Classes:

Wizard of High Sorcery - In Red, White and Black flavors, all with a different experience progression. Each order had particular schools of magic forbidden to it.

Knight of Solamnia - Knights of the Crown, Sword and Rose. Three seperate classes. In order to become a Knight of the Sword, you had to have obtained level 4 and completed several quests as a Knight of the Crown. In order to become a Knight of the Rose, you needed to be at least level 6, been a Knight of the Sword, and complete a more difiicult series of quests. Not that this is really unique, but was the first time it had been done at low levels. The 1E Bard required that you have a specified number of levels as a Fighter, Rogue and Druid (IIRC?) totalling 14 levels (Bards had six levels, one for each of the six Bardic colleges).

Aside from that, Dragonlance distinguished itself with story, rather than mechanics.

Other people touch on certain points. The origional setting was like an european midieval "DARK AGE"setting. No divine power source. The gods had in the past rained fire. Left or was dead. So now that I think off it it had elements of Dark fantasy. Post-apocalyptic. Every one was factured, and withdrawn. Xenophobia, and parania were rampet. Wide spreed thievery and banditry existed. The common people where starving, disease was rampet. Think any wartime occupied countries in the past. The people in charge were rotten spoiled, infighting, the pompus, arrogant. The clerics and the gods have gone. The people in charge barely had control of there own houses. The whole world had gone wild and crazy. It was hard times for hard characters...people would rather cut your throat than shake your hand. Intro the dragon highlords! Tahkisis the evil hot chick god, then 5 headed dragon decided to make her move...while the other gods slept. So she summoned her dragon's. Dragons in DL are more than flying tanks w/breathe weapons. They are that too but thier also intelligent, indpendant, and have an almost avatar quities about them. And her dark clerics (to make the first dracoinans by performing dark rites on good dragon eggs). Dragons in DL are only second to the gods. There near invulnerable exept to "the dragonlances". In the books lot of aerial combat!!!Firefights, mid air jousting matches. Magic was tided to the moons (and alinement) it was ancient.
Unncommon. Rare. DL has been refered to as a low magick setting vs FR's highmagic. Someone said in FR's you need a (+20)sword, and a dracolich in every basesment.

No drow.There were darkelfs but it was regular elf outcast, no duergear. Though they did have dark dwarfs. No orcs. Instead the had ogres. No feywild.
Even though there were differences bettween the races. The had a very humanising feel like the LORD OF THE RINGS FEEL everyone dies. And later...don't ask me how but the races can interbreed. So you got half-kender, kendere-gnomes, etc etc. So that's cool.
And to me the character i grew up reading about!
They could do 4e dragonlance if they wanted too.


My main objection to Dragonlance is similar to my main objection to the Forgotten Realms pre-4E and Star Wars campaigns set during the Rebellion. The original Dragonlance modules came with pregenerated characters of the heroes of the novels (the Heroes of the Lance, as they came to be known), and it was expected that players would play through the story with those characters. The actions of the main characters are considered canon, and they changed and influenced the world. What chance does a PC have to match the accomplishements of Luke Skywalker, Drizz't do'Urden or Raistlin Majere? The PCs wind up being supporting characters in the story of the world, while the NPCs are the real protagonists.

While other franchises have done a good job of making the PCs important (Star Wars set in the Old Republic and the new Forgotten Realms - much improved, by why is Drizz't still alive), every attempt to advance the Dragonlance timeline have met with failure because most of the Heroes of the Lance are still alive (or their children have taken over their places) and the subsequent books that demand to be published also become canon and, consequently, relagate the PCs to supporting cast status again.



So, it will be impossible if the story insists on following cannon, because then we have the "Drizzt Problem."

Even relatively decent design decisions would make that a non-issue.  But I do see your point.  I was forever turned off of Forgotten Realms due to people who were WAAAAAY too gung-ho about memorizing cannon.  I think that is why I prefer Eberron; there ARE no world-shaking heroes that the world can rely upon, and even if there are, there's so much crap going on that they have something else to do (which is of much less significance than what the players are doing).
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
It had a very epic feel. Dark, and gritty. Honorbound. Sacifice. Duty. Taz the Kender(halfing s..but eternal children, with kleptomania and wanderlust. And generally no fear. though taz latter showed some.) hero of the lance. His antic's was really the bright light that contrasted the off 
I kind of suspect that one reason why Dragonlance hasn't made an appearance in 4e is because of the restrictions on the setting.

In 2nd ed (and 3rd, to an extent) there was a problem where the game developers would come up with new ideas that were interesting to players (classes, PC races, monsters), but there was no where to put them in the more tightly defined settings like dragonlance without a big sea change or retcon. It was one factor in the marginalization of psionics, and one of the reasons why Spelljammer was problematic.

Dragonlance is probably the most restrictive of these. Without a big alteration to the setting (which would kind of defeat the purpose of keeping it around), there really isn't a place for a lot of things that are around now: no tiefling,dragonborn, half-orcs, psionics, drow, warlocks, eladrin, etc. Healing is a big issue, especially in the pre-war Age of Despair. The Wizards of High Sorcery weren't fans of non-wizards having magic, which makes probems for non-wizard classes that use arcane power (swordmages, etc.)

During third ed, WotC came out and said: we know people are tired of having fun new things and no place to put them. So, everything goes in Eberon- no blacklisted classes, monsters, powers, etc. If it is in a book, it is in Eberon, and we'll make the lore fit with it as much as possible.

This is also easy with the Points of Light setting- the world is left vague enough that you don't have to shoe-horn in new options for PCs.

That is how I see it: Dragonlance was a very completely defined, coherent setting. Which made it fun to write stories in, but for the game meant that 80% of new material wasn't applicable there.

 So, it will be impossible if the story insists on following cannon, because then we have the "Drizzt Problem."



In reality, it is the "Raistlin problem." Raistlin predates Drizz't by quite a few years, and is a prime example of a canon character becoming so pervasive that the world simply cannot escape him. And, just like Drizz't, Raistlin's popularity became a plague upon D&D for a time as everyone and their sister wanted to play "a character like Raistlin, but" with some minor difference.

And it still wouldn't be "impossible," I am simply not interested in playing in a setting tied to a 30+ year old canon. If I have players who want to play on Krynn when / if the published setting comes out with the Heroes of the Lance still extant, I'll need to go through the canon beforehand and let my players know how I have changed the history of the world before we start.

Even relatively decent design decisions would make that a non-issue.  But I do see your point.  I was forever turned off of Forgotten Realms due to people who were WAAAAAY too gung-ho about memorizing cannon.  I think that is why I prefer Eberron; there ARE no world-shaking heroes that the world can rely upon, and even if there are, there's so much crap going on that they have something else to do (which is of much less significance than what the players are doing).



Which is why I proposed a Dragonlance: Cataclysm setting. There are only two world-shaking heroes at the time, and they are both falling into darkness (the Kingpriest and Lord Soth), effectively becoming the problem rather than the source of any solution. Dealing with a world right as it is falling into disaster would also be a new take on D&D. There have been post-apocalyptic D&D settings before, but none while the apocalypse is actually happening.

Later there were 2 other continents besides Ansalon,... Taladas,Adlatum. Which I'm less familar with.
Later there were 2 other continents besides Ansalon,... Taladas,Adlatum. Which I'm less familar with.



And I really liked Taladas when it came out in 2E. It was the first setting to integrate the kits into character creation (as Dark Sun integrated Themes into 4E, and Neverwinter expanded them beyond Dark Sun). It was also so far removed from Dragonlance that it wasn't really a Dragonlance setting. In reality, only the gods remained the same. Rename the gods, and it really was its own, unique setting.

The Minotaur empire was an interesting take on the Roman Empire, with legal disputes in the empire being resolved in the arena (making the law fun for everyone). There were no novels that involved Taladas, so the campaign setting gave you a starting point, and left it to you to populate it with heroes. The different political / social climate made different gods more influential. Gilean, the god of wealth, became one of the most powerful dieties in the realm. Sargas, the god of the Minotaurs, running second. Takhisis, being so concerned with Ansalon, had very little presence on Taladas, leaving Chemosh to become the primary villain.

I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x?

If they were to do a dragonlance for 4e, I hope they would just do the one for the first 3 books.

list every thing from hazards both racial attitudes to everything else there in it.


and just forget about the rest of the timeline parts that they did.



and whatever they do, the biggest fail of dragonlance was: the only known modules were done off the novels themselves.

dont rerelease them.



as for the ditch the timeline.

one page, its history up to that point, next pages list everything up to the last novel written as a possible outcome.                
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Later there were 2 other continents besides Ansalon,... Taladas,Adlatum. Which I'm less familar with.





I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x?






There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from Dragons of Summers Flame and a few other minor villain races- I don't think it ever got a treatment comperable to Taladas- just a map, a few race stats, and some comments, if I remember right.
I kind of suspect that one reason why Dragonlance hasn't made an appearance in 4e is because of the restrictions on the setting.

In 2nd ed (and 3rd, to an extent) there was a problem where the game developers would come up with new ideas that were interesting to players (classes, PC races, monsters), but there was no where to put them in the more tightly defined settings like dragonlance without a big sea change or retcon. It was one factor in the marginalization of psionics, and one of the reasons why Spelljammer was problematic.

Dragonlance is probably the most restrictive of these. Without a big alteration to the setting (which would kind of defeat the purpose of keeping it around), there really isn't a place for a lot of things that are around now: no tiefling,dragonborn, half-orcs, psionics, drow, warlocks, eladrin, etc. Healing is a big issue, especially in the pre-war Age of Despair. The Wizards of High Sorcery weren't fans of non-wizards having magic, which makes probems for non-wizard classes that use arcane power (swordmages, etc.)

During third ed, WotC came out and said: we know people are tired of having fun new things and no place to put them. So, everything goes in Eberon- no blacklisted classes, monsters, powers, etc. If it is in a book, it is in Eberon, and we'll make the lore fit with it as much as possible.

This is also easy with the Points of Light setting- the world is left vague enough that you don't have to shoe-horn in new options for PCs.

That is how I see it: Dragonlance was a very completely defined, coherent setting. Which made it fun to write stories in, but for the game meant that 80% of new material wasn't applicable there.

To: Gnull They do have psiconic...it's pretty much mysticism. Tiefling are tiefings, Deva are assimar. Dragonborn=draconians, no orcs/half orc but repaint ogre and half ogre. No drow but dark elves.  It's just a matter of rewriting it in! What tower of high sorcery has a elite guard of sword mages. W.o.t.c. create's CSings. Thats what they do and if they wanted to make it fit they could. It's not a big deal.  There should be regnizable themes like DS deserts man vs nature, limited metal, no divine. ect.but as the game advances so should the setting. Though these are not hard and fast rules. I haven't played w/ a hardliner DM! There out there but ...i haven't played w/one. I understand your lack wanting to play a scipted story driven. Early dragonlance  modual did do that like the hero of the lance. But is it any less scripted encounters/premade adventure. The world is a BIG place. If you don't do something else or tell your dm. I don't have a steady group so I mostly play by myself.

I like the setting it history it's characters! Maybe it gotten a bad rap as the one that got away it was owned by wiess productions/pubishing! It was origonally a D&D setting then latter...saga,pathfinder. I not sure of te legal stuff. But I would like to see wizards take it back!!! break it off for 4e. They are still repubishing novels I saw the test of the twins.
Later there were 2 other continents besides Ansalon,... Taladas,Adlatum. Which I'm less familar with.





I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x?




There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from Dragons of Summers Flame and a few other minor villain races- I don't think it ever got a treatment comperable to Taladas- just a map, a few race stats, and some comments, if I remember right.

Adlatum is not the home of the brutes from DoSF, that is a different place.  Adlatum is quite different, and is an entirely fan-made continent.  It is home to winged elves, talker gnomes (rather than Tinker or Thinker aka Mad gnomes), Minotaur Monasteries, and a lot of other stuff.  Where Ansalon was crushed by the Cataclysm and had a maelstrom at the former site of a great empire, and Taladas had a sea of lava, Adlatum sank mostly beneath the waves.

I really don't think Dragonlance is going to see release during 4E.  As that is probably the case, I would love to see it get a month dedicated to it much like Kara-Tur and (possibly) Al'Qadim.  I hope they look at what they had done for Ravenloft and release it that way as well.  Heck, I wouldn't mind if they did a campaign setting month every other month.
Later there were 2 other continents besides Ansalon,... Taladas,Adlatum. Which I'm less familar with.





I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x?




There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from Dragons of Summers Flame and a few other minor villain races- I don't think it ever got a treatment comperable to Taladas- just a map, a few race stats, and some comments, if I remember right.

Adlatum is not the home of the brutes from DoSF, that is a different place.  Adlatum is quite different, and is an entirely fan-made continent.  It is home to winged elves, talker gnomes (rather than Tinker or Thinker aka Mad gnomes), Minotaur Monasteries, and a lot of other stuff.  Where Ansalon was crushed by the Cataclysm and had a maelstrom at the former site of a great empire, and Taladas had a sea of lava, Adlatum sank mostly beneath the waves.

I really don't think Dragonlance is going to see release during 4E.  As that is probably the case, I would love to see it get a month dedicated to it much like Kara-Tur and (possibly) Al'Qadim.  I hope they look at what they had done for Ravenloft and release it that way as well.  Heck, I wouldn't mind if they did a campaign setting month every other month.





You're right- Ithin'carthia was what I was thimking of, but it is just an island insteadbof a whole continent.
Silver blaze is right it is Ithin'carthia. And island south of Taladas east of Ansalon. (DL nexus) And well 1 french fry is better than no frech fry's. I does little to fill the need of more campagne settings. W.o.t.c. has been good at releasing races/classes/powersouces. While i like FR's, and NW releasing these so close togther pretty much sent the message FR's is our core setting. Good for FR bad for the rest of us! The only thing I like from the are the drow and the shades. (not the shade character...that's flawed) But the drow have been overplayed that's just my oppion.
Silver blaze is right it is Ithin'carthia. And island south of Taladas east of Ansalon. (DL nexus) And well 1 french fry is better than no frech fry's. I does little to fill the need of more campagne settings. W.o.t.c. has been good at releasing races/classes/powersouces. While i like FR's, and NW releasing these so close togther pretty much sent the message FR's is our core setting. Good for FR bad for the rest of us! The only thing I like from the are the drow and the shades. (not the shade character...that's flawed) But the drow have been overplayed that's just my oppion.

Opinions are subjective... DL have its issues.

And I think drow are in a way underplayed/underused... Eberron did some, but there could be a new, clever spin on this (and the DARK skinned savages side.. yeah, if you look at it closer, there is an uncomfortable vibe from it)... Like making the classic Lolthite GH-FR society a bit more ambiguous... I'd like a Feminism-inspired spin on this, by example. 

'Yes, we are evil. We Felt. But do you think the Eladrins are so high and great? We at least are not  hypocrites in our evil!'

(I'd BLESS WOTC if they could steal peoples who work(ed) oN Earthdawn and Shadowrun, BTW... They could be usefull on the subjects of elves, drow, etc..) 
I hear a lot about Dragonlance which I know is a old D&D campaign setting, but what made it different to any other ordinary campaign setting? Did it have modified rules or different character classes?

Can anyone give me a concise answer in a few sentances?

Thanks in advance.

That's like asking what's the difference between Babylon 5 and Star Trek. Both are actually just the "standard" Sci-Fi setting with some different flavors


 So, it will be impossible if the story insists on following cannon, because then we have the "Drizzt Problem."



In reality, it is the "Raistlin problem." Raistlin predates Drizz't by quite a few years, and is a prime example of a canon character becoming so pervasive that the world simply cannot escape him.

Well, the FR doesn't have a "Drizzt Problem". Drizzt might be popular, but neither is he really powerfull nor does he solve any big issues in the Realms. He roams a negligible area and has never even merely set foot in 90% of the Realms. "Elminster Problem" might be a more fitting description (which doesn't mean that I agree that there is such a problem).

Good for FR bad for the rest of us! The only thing I like from the are the drow

The were actually from Greyhawk, the FR just copied the whole underdard thing from there
I hear a lot about Dragonlance which I know is a old D&D campaign setting, but what made it different to any other ordinary campaign setting? Did it have modified rules or different character classes?

Can anyone give me a concise answer in a few sentances?

Thanks in advance.

That's like asking what's the difference between Babylon 5 and Star Trek. Both are actually just the "standard" Sci-Fi setting with some different flavors


 So, it will be impossible if the story insists on following cannon, because then we have the "Drizzt Problem."



In reality, it is the "Raistlin problem." Raistlin predates Drizz't by quite a few years, and is a prime example of a canon character becoming so pervasive that the world simply cannot escape him.

Well, the FR doesn't have a "Drizzt Problem". Drizzt might be popular, but neither is he really powerfull nor does he solve any big issues in the Realms. He roams a negligible area and has never even merely set foot in 90% of the Realms. "Elminster Problem" might be a more fitting description (which doesn't mean that I agree that there is such a problem).

Good for FR bad for the rest of us! The only thing I like from the are the drow

The were actually from Greyhawk, the FR just copied the whole underdard thing from there

'Elminster problem' indeed. He is more like it.


Except FR is not a total copy of GH there...

-the pantheons of Drow are not identical (a bit more nuanced and less 'RAWWRRRR EVIL' if you ask me in FR, one god is in GH and not FR, and oe vice versa..) - or was, before Lolth more or less took back control...

-Lolth's and the Drow's origins are not identical (Lolth was a DEMON PRINCESS at first in GH),

-the Underdark itself is different betweem both world (the GH one is more a disjointed group of local things, and FR's a complex underground web, a world more united...)

The Drow, Underdark, etc were created for GH, but like many things, FR added more details, made it more alive and  more nuanced.
GH, and Gygax's original idea was for them as only a new ennemy to kill, sinister, dark.. FR made a bit less stereotypal, more complex. 
I find it humorous that at the slightest mention of DragonLance or the Forgotten Realms, there's always someone around to immediately pitch a fit about Drizzt, Elminster, Raistlin, Tanis, and a select few others. These folks claim that these NPCs make the particular campaign setting difficult to adventure in. The logic being, these NPCs are so powerful that they could accomplish anything the PCs ever could, and do it better in shorter time. It would seem that these people are incapable of independent thought, and must rely on others to supply them with the answers to easily-solved problems.

Is Drizzt or Elminster a problem in your FR games? Then why are they even there? As the DM, it's your job to put the PCs front and center. Period. To the 9 Hells with Drizzt and company. Either they were never there to begin with, have since passed on, left, or are otherwise unavailable for anything even remotely connected to your storyline. You're cheating your players if these NPCs are stealing their spotlight in any way shape or form.

DragonLance is the same way. If you don't want the Heroes of the Lance stealing the show, then don't include them. Set your game before or after the War of the Lance, if that works. If it doesn't, then have the PCs take the place of the Heroes. There are a hundred different ways to go about it. Pick one, and don't let someone else's characters steal the show from your players.

If your players are fascinated with these NPCs, and want their PCs to meet them, then let them. Just don't let these NPCs steal the show, or directly influence your storyline. I have used Elminster, Drizzt, and scores of other NPCs in my games throughout the years, and not ONCE have they had a direct influence on the game. 99% of these meetings took place because the PCs wanted to meet them, not because I interjected them. Elminster is a grouchy, lonely, ill-tempered hermit who no longer entertains audiences. Better to just leave him alone. Drizzt is doing his emo/over-dramatized/hero-with-a-dark-past thing somewhere in the snow-covered mountains. You'd have better luck finding Vecna's head than finding him.

Taking issue with a campaign setting because of the NPCs someone else put there is ridiculous, and shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of the DM. There are plenty of reasons to dislike a setting. The NPCs should not even show up on that particular radar. It's a problem so easily solved that it's laughable.
You pretty much nailed that one hocus-smokus. Your probally taking to the visual, video game ,game gen w/there used to being told and lead then selfimagination. I LIKE video games but I didn't have so many as a kid so i did a lot reading(DL), writeing, drawing, (comics) etc. Past editions expected you to imagine more! 4e has battle grids, minitures, maps. Etc. Hell there even tring to make "theme" mechanical. 4e has the same amount of roplay you got know what you want to do...go. Tell your DM maybe he/she will help maybe not. I don't have a regular group so I play all 5 ch's my self sometimes!

As for Dl it's a campaigne setting like any other. I like mutiple campaigne setting's!! cause it's like you a thirsty for so zombie/werewolf/gothic horror you play RL, you want post-apocalypic , desert, conan the barbarian setting you play DS...all without having to learn new rule systems. I used to flip through them all as a kid. It was standard you expected to be able to play your favorite setings. It does you no good to have hero w/no worlds to explore. If you wan to know about dl read the books.

hell i remember playing w/ no maps, battle grids, etc. making my own worlds. I just takes practice!

I am currently running a 4e Dragonlance campaign and things are working out great.    Thanks to all the great work and suggestions at the dlnexus I've had no problems detailing new races and modifing existing ones.     

I don't see any rules that need to be created to support a DL campaign.    At the moment the FR has already added elven sub races with the Neverwinter Campaign Setting and that helps a great deal.   

Personaly, I think the Time of the Dragon box set for Taladas is the best campaign setting to date.    Everything in that book, with the exception of a very light rule book is completely transferable accross all editions.  

to: Kev777 hell yah! I was trying to tell them it's just a campaigne. And that it CAN be incorated in the current 4e. rule's. Are you using all the classes? Are you all the standard races? Which are you using, which have you modified. Are you useing cam's 4e conversion doc.? If so what? So your running a age of mortals game?
I'm more a book fan for DL. I left. Dragonlance was in full swing, come back and it dead waiting to be resurrected. Such is life. I like the war of souls ok.

But the 5 age stuff is mostly new to me.

I find it humorous that at the slightest mention of DragonLance or the Forgotten Realms, there's always someone around to immediately pitch a fit about Drizzt, Elminster, Raistlin, Tanis, and a select few others. These folks claim that these NPCs make the particular campaign setting difficult to adventure in. The logic being, these NPCs are so powerful that they could accomplish anything the PCs ever could, and do it better in shorter time. It would seem that these people are incapable of independent thought, and must rely on others to supply them with the answers to easily-solved problems.

Is Drizzt or Elminster a problem in your FR games? Then why are they even there? As the DM, it's your job to put the PCs front and center. Period. To the 9 Hells with Drizzt and company. Either they were never there to begin with, have since passed on, left, or are otherwise unavailable for anything even remotely connected to your storyline. You're cheating your players if these NPCs are stealing their spotlight in any way shape or form.

DragonLance is the same way. If you don't want the Heroes of the Lance stealing the show, then don't include them. Set your game before or after the War of the Lance, if that works. If it doesn't, then have the PCs take the place of the Heroes. There are a hundred different ways to go about it. Pick one, and don't let someone else's characters steal the show from your players.

If your players are fascinated with these NPCs, and want their PCs to meet them, then let them. Just don't let these NPCs steal the show, or directly influence your storyline. I have used Elminster, Drizzt, and scores of other NPCs in my games throughout the years, and not ONCE have they had a direct influence on the game. 99% of these meetings took place because the PCs wanted to meet them, not because I interjected them. Elminster is a grouchy, lonely, ill-tempered hermit who no longer entertains audiences. Better to just leave him alone. Drizzt is doing his emo/over-dramatized/hero-with-a-dark-past thing somewhere in the snow-covered mountains. You'd have better luck finding Vecna's head than finding him.

Taking issue with a campaign setting because of the NPCs someone else put there is ridiculous, and shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of the DM. There are plenty of reasons to dislike a setting. The NPCs should not even show up on that particular radar. It's a problem so easily solved that it's laughable.


I've played in three Forgotten Realms games, and started DMing one.

Of the three that I played, two members of each party were drow rangers.  Everyone else was very upset with me when I stated that I hadn't read any of the Drizzt books, including the DM.  To be honest, I felt punished in-game, because everyone expected me to know what they did from the novels, and would crack Drizzt jokes, which I wouldn't laugh at, because I didn't get them.  Oh, and when the party got nearly TPK'd, Drizzt came to save us.

After a bit, I moved to a different state, and decided to run a game in the Forgotten Realms.  I forget to what time I set the game, but I stated that the party was in city X, and Y was happening.  One of my players insists that they find Drizzt.  I was in shock, because here was a player, INSISTING that, because some novel mentioned in passing that Drizzt was there, they could just get him to solve the problem.  When I told him that, no, Drizzt wasn't there and wasn't even in existence in my game, two players (out of five) walked out because I wasn't DMing a Forgotten Realms game that was "true to canon."

I have to say, my experiences with people who are hardcore FR have me extremely predjudiced against them.

That's why I kind of prefer settings that don't have heroes (Points of Light, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun).  Or maybe I just don't like FR because of all the jerks I've met that are into FR, and I can't disassociate them.



 
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Wow, Corrin. That sucks! That is one of the advantages I liked about making my own setting: no one can accuse me of not being true to canon!

Hocus-Smokus pretty much has it right, IMO. For DL in particular, even if you did run things set in War of the Lance, it's not like the characters from the book did everything all on their own. In the early parts, evil is doing small things all over the place and the main characters barely touch the surface of it.. your PCs could discover completely different parts of Takhisis' web of evil. In the end, the characters end up delivering some key artifacts to places they were needed, and defeating a handful of key enemies.. but are those the only key artifacts and enemies? And at some point one of the main characters becomes the general of the overall Good forces.. but were you really going to have the PCs play the highest level general? If you want you can have one of them lead a smaller portion of the forces, and/or advise Laurana during that stage of the war.
Another approach though could be something similar to the plot of Final Fantasy Tactics. That is, the PCs end up doing something incredibly huge and world shattering that the world basically never learns about, at the same time that other more obvious world-shattering events are taking place in plain view. 
After a bit, I moved to a different state, and decided to run a game in the Forgotten Realms.  I forget to what time I set the game, but I stated that the party was in city X, and Y was happening.  One of my players insists that they find Drizzt.  I was in shock, because here was a player, INSISTING that, because some novel mentioned in passing that Drizzt was there, they could just get him to solve the problem.  When I told him that, no, Drizzt wasn't there and wasn't even in existence in my game, two players (out of five) walked out because I wasn't DMing a Forgotten Realms game that was "true to canon."
 



Sounds like your problem self corrected.

Good job.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Sign In to post comments