Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Micah Sweet]

Would you have less of a problem with it if they, say, used a lore justification for the changes? Isn't there some time-traveling magic item in Dragonlance (I know there's one in the most recent book, at least)? If they were to say "Clerics exist earlier in this version of Dragonlance because some Cleric from the future went back in time and spread the faith of the gods before Goldmoon did" (maybe to make there be fewer casualties in the War of the Lance), would you take issue with that?

If so, why? You've said before you have no problem with metaplots in other threads. I personally hate them and think this kind of excuse for changing a world is bad for the game, but you clearly take no issue with them. If you don't take issue with that kind of excuse . . . why, exactly?

Time Travel to reset a setting is a cheap way to maintain continuity, on that we agree.

I know the old settings have a lot of problems. I'd just rather see them retired rather than messed with because WotC believes (rightly, I suspect) that brand recognition will squeeze a few extra dollars out of folks.

 

[Hussar]

It matters to me more than the "gamability" of material, believe it or not.

Honestly? I think that's more on you then. Apparently, judging from how WotC has treated other settings and the rather positive response they've gotten each time - Ravenloft, 5e Sword Coast, now Spelljammer - people don't care so much about the canon of a setting.

Personally, I LOVE the idea of taking inspiration from a setting and then re-envisioning it. I think that's the best way to go forward. I don't want a re-released Dragonlance. I already have that. It's sitting on my shelf right now. I want a new Dragonlance that is different.

Why do people insist that just because we're using older IP's that it's bad to do new things with them? This is the reason we have how many Dark Phoenix movies? Warmed over retreads of the same tired old material that's been done a thousand times before. I'm so sick of it. It's nice that the game going forward is taking excellent ideas from the past and then marrying them to excellent ideas of the present.

And, guess what? I have zero problems with them totally rewriting it all again in ten years and giving me a third version going forward. Gack. I'm so sick of the game spinning its wheels in the same rut. I want new ideas. Fresh takes. Not just warmed over rehashes of the same stuff that's been released, rereleased and then done a third time.

I mean, good grief. You've got 1e/2e Dragonlance. Then you've got 3e Dragonlance. You've got SAGA Dragonlance. You've got the latest from Dragonlance Nexus with Tasslehoff's. FOUR versions of the same setting.

Why on earth would I want a fifth one that does the same stuff that's been done four times before?

 

[Hussar]

Time Travel to reset a setting is a cheap way to maintain continuity, on that we agree.

I know the old settings have a lot of problems. I'd just rather see them retired rather than messed with because WotC believes (rightly, I suspect) that brand recognition will squeeze a few extra dollars out of folks.

Y'know, the really funny thing is @Micah Sweet - they did come out with multiple new settings, and you complained that they weren't doing the old settings and that you hated the new direction of the game. So, they do the old settings, and they're still doing it wrong. They can't win.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly? I think that's more on you then. Apparently, judging from how WotC has treated other settings and the rather positive response they've gotten each time - Ravenloft, 5e Sword Coast, now Spelljammer - people don't care so much about the canon of a setting.

Personally, I LOVE the idea of taking inspiration from a setting and then re-envisioning it. I think that's the best way to go forward. I don't want a re-released Dragonlance. I already have that. It's sitting on my shelf right now. I want a new Dragonlance that is different.

Why do people insist that just because we're using older IP's that it's bad to do new things with them? This is the reason we have how many Dark Phoenix movies? Warmed over retreads of the same tired old material that's been done a thousand times before. I'm so sick of it. It's nice that the game going forward is taking excellent ideas from the past and then marrying them to excellent ideas of the present.

And, guess what? I have zero problems with them totally rewriting it all again in ten years and giving me a third version going forward. Gack. I'm so sick of the game spinning its wheels in the same rut. I want new ideas. Fresh takes. Not just warmed over rehashes of the same stuff that's been released, rereleased and then done a third time.

I mean, good grief. You've got 1e/2e Dragonlance. Then you've got 3e Dragonlance. You've got SAGA Dragonlance. You've got the latest from Dragonlance Nexus with Tasslehoff's. FOUR versions of the same setting.

Why on earth would I want a fifth one that does the same stuff that's been done four times before?

I want new ideas too. I just see no value in attaching them to old names.

You're right though. It is on me, and I can (and should) choose to ignore it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Y'know, the really funny thing is @Micah Sweet - they did come out with multiple new settings, and you complained that they weren't doing the old settings and that you hated the new direction of the game. So, they do the old settings, and they're still doing it wrong. They can't win.

Are you talking about Radiant Citadel? I freely admit I was wrong about that. Its really good, and I'm very happy it's been well-received. Opposing it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.

 

[Hussar]

Are you talking about Radiant Citadel? I freely admit I was wrong about that. Its really good, and I'm very happy it's been well-received. Opposing it was a mistake on my part, and I apologize.

Not just that though. You've got Radiant Citadel, Strixhaven, Wild Beyond the Witchlight, plus actual settings like Mythic Odysseys and Wildemount - all within the past two years.

That's Two big adventure collections and three settings, all of which are original. All since March 2020. How much more original IP stuff do you want? There's only been 7 releases since March 2020 not counting straight up rule books like Fizban's. 5 of 7 releases have been original setting material.

Seems like they're pretty good about giving out original stuff too.

 

[Stormonu]

It matters to me more than the "gamability" of material, believe it or not.

Funny about that - as much as I loved the idea behind the original Ravenloft campaign setting, I never ran it* because it was so mish-mash (and too 18th century in many places). Within a month of having Van Richten's, I ran a Falkovia one-shot and loved it, and I crave doing more of that each coming October (I prefer Ravenloft as a "weekend in hell" than a campaign world, personally).

* Other than the original I6 - Ravenloft

 

[humble minion]

Honestly? I think that's more on you then. Apparently, judging from how WotC has treated other settings and the rather positive response they've gotten each time - Ravenloft, 5e Sword Coast, now Spelljammer - people don't care so much about the canon of a setting.

Well, I'm not sure it's QUITE that simple.

Opinion on Ravenloft was ... extremely split. A whole bunch love it, a whole bunch hate it.

Sword Coast was reasonably well received, but it's worth remembering that SCAG is actually a return to a more 2e/3e-esque iteration of FR lore (yeah, they nominally progressed the timeline, but that's just a figleaf over a retcon). WotC did the big lore upheaval for FR in 4e and it was widely loathed to the point they actually came very close to actually apologising for it in interviews etc later on. SCAG spent a lot of time undoing a lot of that disastrous setting reinvention.

Spelljammer seems to have avoided most of the lore controversy by simply not including any lore but the absolute minimum possible 'this is how spaceflight works' to let PCs to sail between planets.

(Just talking about the lore content here, SCAG and Spelljammer in particular have a lot of critics for other reasons)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Time Travel to reset a setting is a cheap way to maintain continuity, on that we agree.

I know the old settings have a lot of problems. I'd just rather see them retired rather than messed with because WotC believes (rightly, I suspect) that brand recognition will squeeze a few extra dollars out of folks.

But there's a reason why you liked the old settings, right? There is some special part of them that made you love them, play/run campaigns in them, and grow attached to them over the years. And, because the parts of the setting you loved weren't the bigoted parts, the parts of the setting that made you love them will still be there without all of the problematic stuff, like senile wizard jokes, offensively stupid dwarves, racist Romani stand-ins, and the other problematic parts of Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and the other older settings you loved.

And those parts of the settings can connect with younger audiences. And younger audiences won't tolerate those bigoted parts of the settings and also have other preferences about how to play the game that the setting could easily be adjusted to accommodate.

You're following me here, right?

So, there are parts of the settings newer players could like. I certainly don't like Dragonlance, but I admit to enjoying some of its content. If they got rid of the problematic stuff, made the setting not bound by the lore of dusty old novels my players won't give a crap about, and fixed the other parts of the setting I object to (the problematic behavior encouraged by certain races, for example), there's a chance WotC could win me and players/DMs like me over.

The setting gets updated so you don't have to do all the work of converting your old books, newer players get to enjoy a different version of the setting that you love, and WotC makes money off of the book. That's a win-win, is it not?

Or would you rather that newer players don't discover the parts of the setting that you loved and leave the setting to die in the past because you don't like the idea of newer players playing a different version of the setting than the one you fell in love with?

Because that's kind of what if breaks down to. Either the settings Weis and Hickman made die bound to the problematic content they put in it because you don't want the setting to change in ways you don't like, or they get revisions to update them to a modern audience and the possibility of renewed greatness.

Do you really choose the former? Because I know what I have chosen and will continue to choose for as long as I plan on playing D&D. I don't care if the settings I love now are changed in the future to suit a future "modern audience", because I already love my versions of Eberron, Exandria, and Spelljammer and that won't be ruined because someone else is playing it differently.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have a real world major belief system that has a God that drowned the whole world once.

Typically Gods do things for reasons mere mortals cant comprehend

Mod Note:

There’s ways to make that point without singling out a particular RW belief system. Dropping the first sentence would work. So would providing examples from other faiths.

The way you’ve structured your post is potentially inflammatory. Be more mindful going forward.