WotC Dragonlance: Everything You Need For Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has shared a video explaining the Dragonlance setting, and what to expect when it is released in December.

World at War: Introduces war as a genre of play to fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Dragonlance: Introduces the Dragonlance setting with a focus on the War of the Lance and an overview of what players and DMs need to run adventures during this world spanning conflict.

Heroes of War: Provides character creation rules highlighting core elements of the Dragonlance setting, including the kender race and new backgrounds for the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery magic-users. Also introduces the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer subclass with new spells that bind your character to Krynn's three mystical moons and imbues you with lunar magic.

Villains: Pits heroes against the infamous death knight Lord Soth and his army of draconians.

Notes --

• 224 page hardcover adventure
• D&D's setting for war
• Set in eastern Solamnia
• War is represented by context -- it's not goblins attacking the village, but evil forces; refugees, rumours
• You can play anything from D&D - clerics included, although many classic D&D elements have been forgotten
• Introductory scenarios bring you up to speed on the world so no prior research needed

 

[Alzrius]

Which is very true.

Also, very much not what I said, or at least, not what I meant.

There's a big difference between what you said and what you meant, in that case. Let's review, just to be absolutely clear:

The third paragraph of this post has you saying:

Forgotten Realms was largely the start of the whole "Here's a fun setting for DM's to read about but, we're not going to bother actually writing any modules for the setting, so, good luck in having adventures there" approach to settings.

So apparently that is "very much" what you said. If it's not what you meant, it's fine to later go back and clarify your original position, but don't say "that's very much not what I said" when it's a direct quotation.

So, just to be absolutely, pedantically clear so we don't have to spend the next five pages with people fisking posts to try to clarify:

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO MODULES FOR FORGOTTEN REALMS.

Is that clear? Can I say that more clearly? Is there any part of that that isn't understandable?

The thing about this is that you honestly seem to think that you were engaging in some bit of hyperbole whose meaning was obvious, and that people are disingenuously picking apart your statement in a parsimonious fashion despite understanding your intent. In fact, multiple posters have misunderstood you, which should make it clear that this isn't a case of people taking your words literally despite knowing better, and instead a case of you not being anywhere near as clear as you thought you were.

To that extent, if you find that upsetting (hint: posting in all caps makes it clear that you're upset), then may I suggest that you stop engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric and instead state your meaning plainly, since otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when the discussion goes off the rails.

 

[Hussar]

And, now we have the aforementioned fisking and relitigation of what I said.

Are you finished? Is there anything that isn't clear?

Look, just to make it easier, I'll go back and delete the offending post. There, it's gone. You never have to see it again.

Can we now PLEASE get back on topic?

 

[Velderan]

There is another element that people are really missing here too. DM's Guild. WotC has been pretty clear that if you want an expanded setting, you need to hit up the DM's Guild, because WotC isn't going to do it.

And, it's worked really, really well. I just perused this thread: D&D 5E - [Let's Read] DM's Guild Ravenloft Sourcebooks - and there are a ton of high quality, as in first rate quality, setting guides and material for Ravenloft.

Does anyone think that there won't be the same thing for Dragonlance within a year of it's release? Sure, the WotC module might only be 10 levels (something I'm not really happy about) but, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that within months of release there will be dozens of high production value, high quality books adding onto Dragonlance. For example, Strixhaven has been out for a bit less than one year and there are already SEVENTY-SEVEN titles on DM's Guild linked to the module and setting.

Sure, not all of them are great, but, a lot of them really are good.

WotC has made it abundantly clear that they are not going to be the ones expanding settings. They give us the starting point, and that's where it snowballs from.

This isn't the first time I've seen people say "go to DM's Guild for stuff", but this is the first time I've actually seen someone say WotC said go there if you want expanded settings. I've never seen WotC mention the site though, is there an example that sticks out? I actually wish they would promote it more, there's a lot of good material there and it's a great tool for DMs to find additional material.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which is a very far cry from characterizing TSR's take on Realms as "we're not going to bother actually writing any modules for the setting."

It's not that far off, no. The number of adventures produced is TINY compared to the setting material produced. So characterizing it as a very far cry is inaccurate. The Realms was about setting material first and foremost, by a long shot.

 

[Fifth Element]

So apparently that is "very much" what you said. If it's not what you meant, it's fine to later go back and clarify your original position, but don't say "that's very much not what I said" when it's a direct quotation.

That quote is not as damning as you think it is. I understood what they meant, for example.

The thing about this is that you honestly seem to think that you were engaging in some bit of hyperbole whose meaning was obvious, and that people are disingenuously picking apart your statement in a parsimonious fashion despite understanding your intent. In fact, multiple posters have misunderstood you, which should make it clear that this isn't a case of people taking your words literally despite knowing better, and instead a case of you not being anywhere near as clear as you thought you were.

This does not work as an argument, because in online discussions there will almost always be people who misunderstand your argument, often due to a lack of charitable reading.

You've also presented a false dichotomy by omitting the possibility that people simply misread the post rather than acting disengenuously.

Overly literal readings will often push a discussion off the rails.

 

[Velderan]

Overly literal readings will often push a discussion off the rails.

To me, it's not so much an overly literal reading and more of a problem with making overly broad statements that held up questionably to the specific example provided (the Realms not having modules) while pluralizing the word settings to imply they continued doing it as they developed settings. I think we can all agree the ratio of setting material to module in future settings was closer to the DL example you mentioned than the FR example (which you're 100% right they released a lot of setting material for the Realms in the 1E/2E days). Hussar has since clarified the intent of the post, which is fine. It's hard sometimes to construe meaning in forum posts without the tone to go with the words, so clarity helps a lot to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[mamba]

History repeating needs no ridiculous excuse.

And my preference that I’ve proposed many times before is to be far enough in the future that the war of the Lance and the events that follow from it are just as much setting history as the cataclysm was originally

Sorry, but jumping ahead 500 years (Cataclysm) to several thousand (Huma and last dragon war) to avoid jumping back 1 year, or maybe 30 if you want to keep the rest, is ridiculous in itself.

What about technological progress ? Look at where we got since 1400… What about dragons and draconians being new to the setting ? How often do you have gods appear and disappear ? That was already too much in the 30 years of history we have (as adventures)

Going back to the start makes a lot more sense

 

[jasper]

Holy cow; I had no idea AL series were that expensive.

My personal plan is that when my players finally go after Strahd and (presumably) kill him, that will trigger the change.

Season 10 bundle is currently $51.50 for 13 modules which include 2 epics. Modules are generally. $5.
Mist Hunters is $100 for 14 modules with it normally being $150 but they are higher quality in art.

 

[Alzrius]

It's not that far off, no. The number of adventures produced is TINY compared to the setting material produced. So characterizing it as a very far cry is inaccurate. The Realms was about setting material first and foremost, by a long shot.

Yeah, it is that far off. The number of standalone modules might not equal the number of sourcebooks produced, but characterizing it as "we're not going to produce any modules at all" is not only inaccurate, it's wildly inaccurate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is another element that people are really missing here too. DM's Guild. WotC has been pretty clear that if you want an expanded setting, you need to hit up the DM's Guild, because WotC isn't going to do it.

And, it's worked really, really well. I just perused this thread: D&D 5E - [Let's Read] DM's Guild Ravenloft Sourcebooks - and there are a ton of high quality, as in first rate quality, setting guides and material for Ravenloft.

Does anyone think that there won't be the same thing for Dragonlance within a year of it's release? Sure, the WotC module might only be 10 levels (something I'm not really happy about) but, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that within months of release there will be dozens of high production value, high quality books adding onto Dragonlance. For example, Strixhaven has been out for a bit less than one year and there are already SEVENTY-SEVEN titles on DM's Guild linked to the module and setting.

Sure, not all of them are great, but, a lot of them really are good.

WotC has made it abundantly clear that they are not going to be the ones expanding settings. They give us the starting point, and that's where it snowballs from.

In some cases with the DMsguild stuff, they're not even really giving a starting point, just legal permission to write about the setting. It is the only thing about 5e's treatment of settings that I see as a positive.