D&D 4E Do you really want Greyhawk and Dragonlance for 4e

[Dragonhelm]

With Dragonlance, I have major reservations. Now, I don't know how much of my reservations are based on liking the setting more for novels than gaming. But it seems to me that the intersection of people who "like Dragonlance a lot" with those who "like 4E a lot" is awfully tiny, compared to a lot of other things that you can do.

It's true that there aren't a lot of 4e DL fans in fandom, at least not on the Dragonlance forums. I think some of that is because 4e is seen as a tactical system while DL is a story-driven world. 4e also has a lot of elements that may not work as well with DL, such as more power sources. I think, too, that many DL fans hold what MWP produced on a pedestal, and use Pathfinder since it is more compatible.

But some of the Dragonlance gamers are already really prickly about canon.

Just a weeeeeeeee bit. Then again, you have fans of any setting who are that way.

 

[Pentius]

It's true that there aren't a lot of 4e DL fans in fandom, at least not on the Dragonlance forums. I think some of that is because 4e is seen as a tactical system while DL is a story-driven world. 4e also has a lot of elements that may not work as well with DL, such as more power sources. I think, too, that many DL fans hold what MWP produced on a pedestal, and use Pathfinder since it is more compatible.



Just a weeeeeeeee bit. Then again, you have fans of any setting who are that way.

I don't know my Dragonlance very well, other than having read the first trilogy a decade ago, but I don't see why the power sources would be an issue. Most of them map fairly well to "legacy" power sources, and if there's really not a satisfactory way to blend it, well, just cut a source. Dark Sun did it.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Generic Settings and Real Estate

I think one of the big hurdles towards getting Greyhawk and Dragonlance for 4e is this idea people have that they are competing with the Realms for real estate. Now die-hard fans of each setting will say otherwise, but to your casual fan, they're fairly interchangeable.

I believe that each of these settings needs its own thing to call its own. Something that thematically sets each one apart.

This is Dungeons & Dragons, right? One could look at it from a simple point of view that Greyhawk is the dungeon world and Dragonlance is the dragon world. But I think we can go beyond that.

Dragonlance is also a setting that is very story-driven. It's high fantasy, with an epic tale of faith and war. Perhaps the best way to handle DL would be through story-driven adventure paths. I don't know.

I'm not as familiar with Greyhawk, but beyond its classic dungeons, it seems to be a setting based in classic fantasy literature. I've heard it described as more sword-and-sorcery. It's also got a lot of the famous names associated with D&D, such as Mordenkainen. I've considered the idea that the City of Greyhawk would make for a good sourcebook, ala Neverwinter.

I don't know what way is the best.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's true that there aren't a lot of 4e DL fans in fandom, at least not on the Dragonlance forums. I think some of that is because 4e is seen as a tactical system while DL is a story-driven world. 4e also has a lot of elements that may not work as well with DL, such as more power sources. I think, too, that many DL fans hold what MWP produced on a pedestal, and use Pathfinder since it is more compatible.

I think the disconnect is deeper than that. I don't think that Dragonlance fans (to be way overly generalizing about a wide range of people for a minute) tend to like "re-imagings" as a form of conversion. What is the leader's name, "Talis"? I forget. But I seriously doubt a "close enough" mechanical re-imagining of him in the 4E system will meet with their approval.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and having had to already twist AD&D mechanics into something that didn't quite fit has already predisposed the bulk of the DL fans to accept this kind of mechanic/imagining difference. I do know that the self-identified DL fans here and other boards that I have been on have been some of the most vocal about setting changes--even if only the label attached to a concept--i.e. getting really bent out of shape about the "fighter" class not being the best way to produce a character they think of as a "fighter" in setting, and therefore want the "fighter" label attached to.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I don't know my Dragonlance very well, other than having read the first trilogy a decade ago, but I don't see why the power sources would be an issue. Most of them map fairly well to "legacy" power sources, and if there's really not a satisfactory way to blend it, well, just cut a source. Dark Sun did it.

Martial, arcane, and divine work really well. Primal works well enough, though you need to tie it into the gods more, whether directly or indirectly.

Shadow has kind of worked itself out, as it ties into other power sources. In fact, I think it helps out when discussing whether necromancy is the purview of Black Robe wizards or clerics of Chemosh, evil god of death. The Shadowfell is an issue still.

We don't know about elemental yet, but it sounds like it crosses over into other power sources. That should work well for sorcerers in DL.

Psionics is the one power source I could see them dropping. Psionics could be used for mysticism real well, but that's a very big redefining of what mysticism is.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I think the disconnect is deeper than that. I don't think that Dragonlance fans (to be way overly generalizing about a wide range of people for a minute) tend to like "re-imagings" as a form of conversion.

To some degree. Remember, Dragonlance utilizes a lot of AD&D-isms in the setting. As D&D evolves, the disconnect becomes greater.

What is the leader's name, "Talis"? I forget. But I seriously doubt a "close enough" mechanical re-imagining of him in the 4E system will meet with their approval.

Tanis Half-Elven. Tanis has been a source of contention for years. Is he a fighter or ranger? Then 3e gave us the idea that he could be multiclass, though he didn't fit the model of a ranger past 3rd level.

I thought it would get worse in 4e with the warlord being introduced. But as we looked at it closer, and saw the archery warlord build (forget the name at the moment), it really seems like a natural fit for Tanis.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and having had to already twist AD&D mechanics into something that didn't quite fit has already predisposed the bulk of the DL fans to accept this kind of mechanic/imagining difference.

Dragonlance fans may be a little hesitant after the setting was changed to the SAGA rules as well. Coupled with a time jump that drastically changed the world, Dragonlance developed a split fan base. I worried about history repeating itself when the Realms went to 4e, truth be told.

It wasn't that SAGA was bad. In fact, it was critically acclaimed. It's just that it was drastically different. 4e has the luxury of being D&D still, so it's a closer match to DL. However, 4e has seen some of the largest changes in the game in a long while.

DL fans also saw a lot of changes with 3e. No kender wizards? Well, not according to the basic philosophy that any race can be any class. So then we had to go into fluff, saying that while it was possible it has never happened. Of course, people played kender wizards anyway.

 

[vagabundo]

I'd like to see one major setting release every year and maybe two minor ones.

the Major release gets all the support. The minor ones are stand alone hardbacks, that's it, maybe a published adventure or something in dungeon.

It's really about options. if you are looking for something new, but the one setting they release doesn't do it for you then you are screwed.

And if they happen to strike gold and one of the hardbacks really takes off they can go with that. Let's say Brightright or Al-Qadim sells out and they do another print run and that sells out, well I would expect them to level-up their support.

I think what sunk TSR - apart from the mismanagement - was trying to continuously support all of their settings. It swamped the market.

Oh and the minor ones can be wacky, far out, brand new or especially niche...

 

[Dungeoneer]

It seems like lately they are changing up the way they do setting releases. Here you have Neverwinter, which is a much more focused campaign setting. It only spans 10 levels and it's actually part of FR. Then you have the Shadowfell boxed set, which I would argue is a campaign setting in any meaningful sense of the term: it's got a campaign guide, encounters, and monsters. If you want player options, there's the Heroes of Shadow book.

I wouldn't be surprised if going forward they did more of these 'settings in a box'. Like the two recent settings, they would be tightly focused in terms of location and level and be pretty well self-contained, but with hooks into larger campaigns. They probably wouldn't see as much support as, say, Eberron, but not every setting needs that.

I think if you're a fan of a setting that didn't previously seem like it had a lot of hope of getting the Royal Setting Treatment, this is good news.

 

[AlioTheFool]

It's necessarily evidence of anything but it is interesting that in today's DM Experience article by Chris Perkins, in the answer to last week's poll regarding which setting's themes excite people the most, Dragonlance tops the list by a rather large margin. Dragonlance had 13.4% of the total votes. By comparison, the second place finisher, Ravenloft, came in with 8.8%. Greyhawk came in fifth with 7.3%.

 

[Scribble]

I know this would probably end up just pissing off a lot o people... But... I think it would be kind of neat if, in absense of putting out a "setting book" or something, if they just re-did some of the things from bygone settings in the DDI.

I think if they released the gods for the various settings, and some of the major themes, that would go a long way towards letting people that want to play in the setting do so.