Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Fifth Element]

Because what you want is a different world.

Please try to remember that your opinion about what the core concepts of DragonLance are not universal. What you see as a different world is a tweaked version of the same world to another. Please stop gatekeeping Krynn.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, I asked at which point does it become something new. I included the link for perspective.

There is no right answer to that question. It's subjective. People need to remember that where they personally draw the line is subjective.

 

[Faolyn]

First, how are people playing it now if it doesn't meet these modern standards?

Second, I would be quite happy if WotC stopped working on it.

What people play at home is not the same thing as what a company publishes.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If they made a 5e rules-driven version of the setting, where they just update the mechanics, I probably would buy it.

I probably would not, as a data point. I have read the original trilogy and several of the sequels back in the day and re-read the trilogy recently
That said thinking about it, I do not think I would buy a simple revision either. If the revised setting has domain management and integration to the wargame and if the wargame is any good, I could be very interested in it.

 

[beancounter]

There is no right answer to that question. It's subjective. People need to remember that where they personally draw the line is subjective.

Yes!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mean, a bit off-topic, but its probably gone nowerdays, given being removed in a republishing off one of the books

It was removed from the SCAG. That doesn't excuse the gods from supporting that before, though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just out of curiosity, what's your vision of a Neutral that isn't "kinda evil in itself"? Because if "recognizes the existence of Evil and doesn't dedicate itself to its destruction" disqualifies you from being Neutral, I'm curious about how you define that particular term.

I think D&D's concept of "neutrality" in moral decisions is bad. If Neutral Gods are okay with evil existing, they aren't "Neutral", they are evil. They might not be the ones performing those evil acts, but they have the power to stop them and choose to be bystanders. "With great power comes great responsibility", after all.

I think it's impossible for a god in D&D to be "Neutral". They're either good or they're evil. There's no in-between. They either are okay with evil acts happening and thus are evil, or they fight against evil acts and thus are good.

 

[the Jester]

The novels were written concurrently with the modules. They supported each other, and nearly every other product published for Dragonlance since then draws on material from the novels. Without them, Dragonlance would be unrecognizable.

The game came first. The novels were written as a sort of story hour of the playtest. There's even a story about exactly when Raistlin's voice was "discovered" in play.

I'm not saying the novels aren't important to the way DL came to be viewed, but claiming they are the origin is simply wrong. Without the adventures, the novels would probably... well, honestly, they might well be better, without a bunch of the chaff that was required to make a, what, 14-module long series of adventures? I mean, they dropped entire modules' worth of play from the novels anyway. But the campaign would be unrecognizable without the adventures. Take away all the novels, and you still have a serviceable setting and a bunch of adventures of, ehhh, varied quality.

Again, I'm not saying the novels aren't important to a reader of Dragonlance, but they aren't really important to someone who wants to play in Dragonlance. And the reverse is true: a reader can never play the game or even know that D&D exists and be perfectly happy with the books (novels) alone.

 

[Hussar]

This seems likely to be a misrepresentation. Has anyone here actually said that the good gods must be 100% infallible in order to be considered good? Or have they (as I have) said that failing the prevent the Cataclysm when they could have done so is in itself so egregious that is prevents them from being called good for any reasonable definition of that term?

Here you're underplaying just how bad the Cataclysm was. It wasn't a little boo-boo that can be brushed off with an apology. It was a genocidal act. Being able to prevent a genocide, and failing to do so, disqualifies you from being "good."

Hang on, let's examine that last part. Are you saying that trying and failing makes you evil?

So, the gods (plural, as in all of them) send the Cataclysm. The good gods attempt to stop it, but, since they are forbidden from acting directly and can only act through signs and portents and the like (a pretty reasonable fantasy trope) but fail to stop it, they are now evil and guilty of genocide? That's a take on morality that I don't think I agree with.

But, again, in any case, since we're obviously not going to agree on this point, but we do agree that the Cataclysm is necessary for the setting, how would you do it? How would you include the Cataclysm but in such a way that it is acceptable to you? Because I have seen a couple of options here that I have no problems with. The whole "Let's not say" option has some pretty good legs. There are conflicting ideas, but, it's just not established. Or, blame it on the Kingpriest. That's an option as well.

Is there another one?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Every D&D god are like the Greek or Norse gods. They are people with a lot of power.

IMO