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.
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 senta
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 Dragonlan
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!"
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?[/quote]T
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.
Yeah I had a look at that, but it mainly just mentions locations and characters, and I wondered how it was mechanically different.[/quote]To be frank, unless there is something I'm not remembering, there was nothing mechanically different from Dragon
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.
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?[/quote]D
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.
Yeah I had a look at that, but it mainly just mentions locations and characters, and I wondered how it was mechanically different.[/quote]To be frank, unless there is something I'm not remembering, there was nothing mechanically different from Dragon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. P
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).
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
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
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 t
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.
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 int
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.
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
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?
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 Dragonla
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.
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
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 don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x? [/quote]There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from D
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.
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
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.
I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x? [/quote] There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from
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.
I don't remember anything about Adlatum. Was that in a Soveriegn Press (Weis & Hickman's publishing house) release for 3.x? [/quote] There was a little about Adlatum in the Sovereign Press books. It was the home of the blue-tattooed barbarians from
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 race
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..)
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 unco
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
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 flavorsIn reality, it is the "Raistlin problem." Raistlin predates Drizz't by quite a few years, and is
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.
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 flavorsIn reality, it is the "Raistlin problem." Raistlin predates Drizz't by quite a few years, and is
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 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 mak
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.
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), writein
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.
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: 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 th
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 think the point that people are making when they point out the "Drizzt Problem" or its variations in Elminster and Raistlin is that there is an established canon for these certain timeframes of the worlds of Faerun and Krynn. There's a point made that these heroes exist in this timeframe, and they were in this locale and did this heroic thing. That's a known quantity, and sometimes was even mentioned in the splatbooks regarding the setting, even if only in passing.
Therefore, there's that moment of realization or disconnect for a DM as they realize that there are NPCs in the setting who are far superior to this new gang of level 1 PCs looking to carve a name for themselves...and what acts of great courage and daring do they have left to pitch in with? The Heroes of the Lance have already taken out X major threats and done Y dynamic thing that changed the course of the world. Drizzt and his comrades have already settled major threats Z in this part of Faerun, and Elminster is always in charge of situation M, so that's all tied up. So, it makes many DMs--especially if they have players who are in the know of such a setting--have to think doubly hard about how to both give convincing reasons why these newbie heroes are out and about, and/or how to explain why these big name hero-superstars aren't actually present in your version of Faerun or Krynn.
It's not that it's impossible, it's that it takes time to actually consider and do, especially since it might mean going back and saying "No, these guys aren't the Heroes of the Lance. You're taking over that role and playing out their adventure, but in the way you want to!" or whatever. And realizing that if your players are in the know, they might just follow the same steps the original characters did without deviation, no matter what you throw at them. Like the time I watched some kids set up to play D&D...and the DM proceeded to take them through one of Drizzt's adventures, and the other kids essentially followed the same story without missing a beat or changing a single step. It was rather dull to listen to, even with it only being background noise to my own homebrew campaign; this is the sort of campaign that knowing a world has had XYZ things happen in can breed, especially if it's something recorded in a certain time period as happening.
Also, players that know the stories can often make it even more difficult to straighten out; a player who insists on "Meeting Drizzt," or whomever their most beloved NPC is can be a frustration, especially when they insist that it's just a quick trip here, because you're in this time frame of the setting, so they'd be there! Yes, you can explain that this didn't happen in your setting, but it's still a frustration that can occur.
I think the point that people are making when they point out the "Drizzt Problem" or its variations in Elminster and Raistlin is that there is an established canon for these certain timeframes of the worlds of Faerun and Krynn. There's a point made
Yes, there absolutely is canon for Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and several other campaign settings. That cannot be denied. Players are aware of this canon. This also cannot be denied. I suppose if a player comes into the game for the first time after reading the DragonLance novels or the twelve dozen Drizzt books, then they will naturally assume that these Mary Jane characters exist in the campaign world. Having started playing D&D myself quite some time before any Drizzt books ever came out, I was able to exist outside of the phenomenon. Players would come to the table with the notion that Drizzt would help them with Enormous Problem X, or that Elminster would get them out of Inescapable Doom X. I had to nip it in the bud.
At the very beginning of a Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, or any other campaign, one of my opening lines is usually, "If you have read the novels associated with this setting...forget them. They never happened. This story we're about to tell is not about them. It's about you. All of the world-altering things they did in those overrated books are nothing compared to what your group can do. Don't let the ramblings of an author overshadow the story we can tell together." That's usually enough to do the trick.
My oldest son is 16. I taught him how to play D&D when he was 9. He learned to play under 2E rules. Shortly after picking up the game, he also became interested in the novels...the Drizzt books, specifically. He still keeps up with Salvatore's rants, buying every new release with as much zeal as he had when he read the first book of the Dark Elf Trilogy. Shortly after picking up these books, he started playing Drow 2-weapon rangers. Drizzt clones, for short. He still has a penchant for playing Drow, but at least the Drizzt clones have stopped popping up every game. When I would ask him if his PC would be interested in meeting Drizzt, his response was usually, "No. My guy's much cooler, and I doubt they would get along anyway. Drizzt's kind of a tool." Good lad. The Force is stong with him.
Anyway, I seem to be waxing a bit long for my own liking. The point is, it is up to the DM and the group as to what is "canon", and what is not. There is only a disconnect if it is allowed to happen. It's ultimately the DM's responsibility to state what is allowed and what is not. If the DM says, "No info or characters from novels will be appearing in this game", then that's how it is. If the players just have a total need to meet these NPCs, then it's the DM's job to assure that the NPCs are not scene-stealers. They should be nothing more than window-dressing. They should not be problem-solvers, tip-givers, plot-makers, or active participants in the campaign, unless that is the express desire of both the DM and the players.
Yes, there absolutely is canon for Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and several other campaign settings. That cannot be denied. Players are aware of this canon. This also cannot be denied. I suppose if a player comes into the game f
When I spoke of the "disconnect," I meant more the fact that there's a canon one has to acknowledge exists, and then actively point out to players when and if it doesn't, and consider how that affects the setting around the PCs. It's a step that's unnecessary in a homebrew, and can be more work for the DM, especially if by saying "So-and-so doesn't exist in my Faerun" you're removing the person responsible for a major event. Then you'd have to consider how that would work--if there's no Elminster and never has been, how does that affect the world of Faerun as a whole?
Sure, it's easy to say that all it takes is saying "We're not going to acknowledge these characters as existing/being available to do X/take visitors," but I feel that's missing the bigger picture of what that does--particularly the first of those variations--to the setting on the whole.
When I spoke of the "disconnect," I meant more the fact that there's a canon one has to acknowledge exists, and then actively point out to players when and if it doesn't, and consider how that affects the setting around the PCs. It's a step that's u
If it is information that can be learned from reading the official game material, then I am much more inclined to include it in the game. Take Elminster, for example. In the 4E FR setting, Elminster is mentioned...in passing. A small side-note at the bottom of one page. Drizzt is mentioned once, also in passing, as being part of the Many Arrows lore. This is okay with me. Elminster's note states his powers have diminished, and that he rarely keeps an audience anymore. In other words, he's not interested in helping a rag-tag band of PCs. Drizzt's mention tells absolutely nothing about him. There is more info on the present King of Cormyr than on either Drizzt or Elminster, and that's perfect.
When I say "canon", I'm referring to the actual game books. Not novels, comics, movies, or anything else. While many feel that 4E took a hot, steamy dump on the Realms, I like what they did. The major NPCs are just notes, or not mentioned at all. The world was made expressly for the PCs. There is history, but even the vast majority of the history doesn't even mention these uber-powerful NPCs. I feel this is how it's supposed to be.
If it is information that can be learned from reading the official game material, then I am much more inclined to include it in the game. Take Elminster, for example. In the 4E FR setting, Elminster is mentioned...in passing. A small side-note at the
I've never had anyone sell me on a particular "feel" for the Dragonlance campaign setting. It just sort of exists in my mind. There's the Cataclysm, the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, the War of Souls and that's it. The Realms may have been paved corner to corner, but it occupies my "fantasy kitchen sink" mindspace for campaigns (theodicy's eternal epic standoff aside), and I don't have enough mental hooks to differentiate Kyrnn from most other general fantasy worlds while settings like Athas and Eberron have their own unique feelings. Maybe it's because I haven't had anyone sell me on it, I don't know. I respect what the original setting did when it came to crafting a series of modules of epic scope and how much it meant to people who grew up with the modules and books, but I just haven't felt the urge to explore further. How do you sum up Kyrnn in a single sentence?
I've never had anyone sell me on a particular "feel" for the Dragonlance campaign setting. It just sort of exists in my mind. There's the Cataclysm, the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, the War of Souls and that's it. The Realms may have been pave
Yes, there absolutely is canon for Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and several other campaign settings. That cannot be denied. Players are aware of this canon. This also cannot be denied. I suppose if a player comes into the game for the first time after reading the DragonLance novels or the twelve dozen Drizzt books, then they will naturally assume that these Mary Jane characters exist in the campaign world. Having started playing D&D myself quite some time before any Drizzt books ever came out, I was able to exist outside of the phenomenon. Players would come to the table with the notion that Drizzt would help them with Enormous Problem X, or that Elminster would get them out of Inescapable Doom X. I had to nip it in the bud.
Years ago (somewhere during 2e) I was running a game at the LGS. It was nominally set in the FR - with a liberal dose of 1e GH & homebrew stuff sprinkled in. Anyways, one of the adventures led the party northwards to within striking distance (very generally speaking IMO) of Icewind Dale etc. Now I hadn't really given Drizzt much thought at all (I gennerally don't as I don't hold the novels as cannon in the games I run), I just needed some large & snowy mountains as the setting for the next chapter....
The players though saw this as a chance to recruit Drizzts help - something I wasn't too keen on having happen. Afterall, this is thier story, not Drizzts. And so they set off across the snowy north in search of him. Heh, Ok. I'd prepped x, but change-o-plans I guess....
So they willingly(!) spent many many sessions (almost all summer!) tramping about the North, continuously a few steps behind him, occassionally seeing what they believed/or were told was his handiwork. (I kinda expected them to take the hint & give it up after a few weeks, but no....) Oh, and they were growing ever more powerfull through their own adventures in the area. Eventually they caught up to him in a barbarian mead hall WAY WAY distant from the adveture that they'd decided to seek his help with.
They plead their case.
Drizzt reply was (essentially) "Sounds like a problem, but no thanks, I'm busy. BTW, why are you guys trying to recruit me??" {by this point the party of 6 all out-leveled our favorite drow ranger - a fact that latter got pointed out to them} One of the players said something smart about how all he was doing was drinking ale. No, it turned out he was was merely having lunch before setting out on the next leg of his own quest - wich he didn't really need the PCs help with, but wouldn't turn down - that was going to lead him even further away. So..... The party could tag along & help Drizzt with something that was way too easy for them, OR They could make all haste in heading back south & try and deal with their original problem in the nick of time. (they failed btw)
:)Years ago (somewhere during 2e) I was running a game at the LGS. It was nominally set in the FR - with a liberal dose of 1e GH & homebrew stuff sprinkled in.Anyways, one of the adventures led the party northwards to within striking distance (very
Well I think there are modules out there like the Price of Courage trilogy by Cam Banks that demonstrate how it is indeed possible to have an "epic" storyline and even meet famous NPCs without having them steal the scene from the characters.
And that's the defining trait for the setting, I think: themes like humble people achieving great feats, personal sacrifice and a focus on personal background. Also, you have quite an emphasis on different people coming together for temporary converging interests and a good deal of inter-party strife because of moral issues and different agendas.
They are set after the WoS but they make you deal with the aftermath of the 5th Age early days (won't say more because I wouldn't want to spoil the storyline for anyone).
They're written for 3.5ed so of course that's the easiest way to play them but I ran the first module with 4e without any particular problem (of course this involves some prepping but hey).
Most new classes are not hard to include but of course you have to disconnect real world organizations (fluff) from character classes (crunch) a bit. I had a warlock in the party which was explained as a "kinda-sorcerer" with a demonic friend. Hell, it even made for interesting plot twists.
Well I think there are modules out there like the Price of Courage trilogy by Cam Banks that demonstrate how it is indeed possible to have an "epic" storyline and even meet famous NPCs without having them steal the scene from the characters. And that
I've had a bit of recent experience in this area and I would say that Canon is one of the things that can really cripple a game (particulary if the Players are better versed in it than the DM!).
Firstly, I think that you should look at any particular campaign setting as a set of infinite parallel universes. DM Fred's FR campaign should be a parallel universe to DM Joe's FR campaign. Similarly, the "official" canon should be another parallel universe. Once a particular DM has got his/her hands on a campaign setting he/she should MAKE IT THEIR OWN.
Secondly, I would advise Dragonlance DMs to go about it in this way:
1) Pick the time period that you want to start it. Resist the compulsion to start at the very beginning or be "bang up to date" unless you really want to be. There are decades inbetween the War of the Lance and the Chaos War - that's a lot of undocumented history! 2) Everything that has happened in the past of your starting point, stick to Canon 3) Everything that has happened in the future, IGNORE the Canon, just STEAL ideas from it! 4) Explain to the players at the start of the campaign that this is a slightly alternative universe, so things will happen that are similar but not indentical to the "official" canon storyline. For starters, their PCs will be the heroes! 5) Be ready to explain to any new players coming in halfway how your campaign storyline diverges from the official. 6) If you're adapting some detailed storylines (like Raistlin's pact with Fistandantilus), then use the Archtypes approach discussed in the 3rd edition material, i.e. pick the PC that fits the closest and chuck them that story arc. Make sure the player is driving the story though, don't shoe-horn them into something against their will or take control away from them.
Hope this helps someone run a successful Dragonlance campaign.
I've had a bit of recent experience in this area and I would say that Canon is one of the things that can really cripple a game (particulary if the Players are better versed in it than the DM!).Firstly, I think that you should look at any particular
I've never had anyone sell me on a particular "feel" for the Dragonlance campaign setting. It just sort of exists in my mind. There's the Cataclysm, the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, the War of Souls and that's it. The Realms may have been paved corner to corner, but it occupies my "fantasy kitchen sink" mindspace for campaigns (theodicy's eternal epic standoff aside), and I don't have enough mental hooks to differentiate Kyrnn from most other general fantasy worlds while settings like Athas and Eberron have their own unique feelings. Maybe it's because I haven't had anyone sell me on it, I don't know. I respect what the original setting did when it came to crafting a series of modules of epic scope and how much it meant to people who grew up with the modules and books, but I just haven't felt the urge to explore further. How do you sum up Kyrnn in a single sentence?
I think it's actually about flawed characters who end up saving the world. Tanis' line : "If I'm so dammned wise, how come my own life is such a mess?" sums it up really. Raistlin is a psychological mess, and so is his brother in the second trilogy. We know what's going to happen to Sturm and there's no Hollywood twist. A good Dragonlance campaign should be about the PCs - everything should revolve around developing them as 3-dimensional people (and that's hard to put into a $29.99 sourcebook). I also like the politics and that fact that dragons feel more like angels or demons than big collections of hit points.
I think it's actually about flawed characters who end up saving the world. Tanis' line : "If I'm so dammned wise, how come my own life is such a mess?" sums it up really. Raistlin is a psychological mess, and so is his brother in the second trilogy.
4E could definitly work with a Dragonlance theme. Races such as teiflings were always there. Teiflings just kept alow profile around Neraka and Sanction. Raistlin could easily be portrayed as a Warlock due to his pact with Fistandantilus or at the very least a wizard/warlock hybrid. Since rituals cover such things as raise dead and remove disease, a warlord can provide logical healing during the Cataclysm or the 4rth Age when divine magic disappears. Swordmages could be explained away as the old elf fighter/mage role from earlier D&D. Gilthanas was a fighter mage and would be an excellent candidate for swordmage since he was more often portrayed as a fighter than a wizard in the stories.
4E could definitly work with a Dragonlance theme. Races such as teiflings were always there. Teiflings just kept alow profile around Neraka and Sanction. Raistlin could easily be portrayed as a Warlock due to his pact with Fistandantilus or at the ve
The rest sounds interesting though.
