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]

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

And yet several other posters didn't, which demonstrates that it's not as clear as you think.

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.

On the contrary, it works extremely well as an argument. Just saying "lots of other people are unclear in what they post" is whataboutism, not a defense that the post itself was entirely accurate. Likewise, the dichotomy in question wasn't false, because there's no one putting forward that other posters were acting disingenuously (since they weren't).

The reading wasn't overly literal, either, especially since the poster in question has previously made numerous outlandish claims that even a casual examination of the facts don't support; remember the implication about how most 3E modules weren't written in-house (they were), or that the good gods in Dragonlance aren't able to act directly, and that's why the Cataclysm wasn't stopped (which is completely wrong)? So yeah, when a poster has a recent history of posting things that are wildly incorrect, it's not at all disingenuous to not think that they're using hyperbole.

 

[Reynard]

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 would be great, as I mentioned upthread, if it were in any way curated and as a consumer I had a way to avoid the dross and locate the high quality material there.

WotC just opening the doors and walking away does sort of exemplify their attitude toward settings, though, so at least they are consistent.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Back when Dragon+ was a thing, they routinely reviewed a DM's guild product, sometimes interviewed the writer, and occasionally gave a product away for free. When D&D Beyond was still independent, they would also have staff writers occasionally mention and review DM Guild stuff. WotC also put a lot of things on there prior to D&DB's acquisition; such as their Extra Life content. I assume they are changing policy now to incorporate Beyond as the one-stop shop for those things, but It hardly ignored in the 5e era.

 

[bedir than]

Back when Dragon+ was a thing, they routinely reviewed a DM's guild product, sometimes interviewed the writer, and occasionally gave a product away for free. When D&D Beyond was still independent, they would also have staff writers occasionally mention and review DM Guild stuff. WotC also put a lot of things on there prior to D&DB's acquisition; such as their Extra Life content. I assume they are changing policy now to incorporate Beyond as the one-stop shop for those things, but It hardly ignored in the 5e era.

it's also plugged in the current Starter Set

 

[Fifth Element]

And yet several other posters didn't, which demonstrates that it's not as clear as you think.

And some posters did, which demonstrates that it's not as unclear as you think. Remember that you're the one who attempted to place 100% of the blame of any misunderstanding on the person writing the post, accepting zero responsibility for reading it uncharitably.

On the contrary, it works extremely well as an argument. Just saying "lots of other people are unclear in what they post" is whataboutism

That's not at all what I said. Again, you've misunderstood someone's post, perhaps it's an indication of a pattern. What I actually said what that no matter how clearly you write something online, there will always be at least some people who misread it, for a wide variety of reasons. As such, the fact that someone has misread your intent is not evidence that you wrote it unclearly.

The reading wasn't overly literal, either, especially since the poster in question has previously made numerous outlandish claims that even a casual examination of the facts don't support; remember the implication about how most 3E modules weren't written in-house (they were),

If that's an "outlandish claim" in your book, I'd say your bar for what constitutes an outlandish claim is far too low to be useful in conversation.

or that the good gods in Dragonlance aren't able to act directly, and that's why the Cataclysm wasn't stopped (which is completely wrong)?

I absolutely disagree with them on their interpretation of that. But you can't call it factually incorrect. That's a matter of opinion. You can believe their opinion is very misguided on a topic, but that doesn't make it not a matter of opinion. So again, that's not relevant here.

So yeah, when a poster has a recent history of posting things that are wildly incorrect, it's not at all disingenuous to not think that they're using hyperbole.

I never said disingenuous. I said uncharitable. And it absolutely is uncharitable, especially when the examples you provide of their "recent history of posting things that are wildly incorrect" are so very weak.

 

[Alzrius]

And some posters did, which demonstrates that it's not as unclear as you think. Remember that you're the one who attempted to place 100% of the blame of any misunderstanding on the person writing the post, accepting zero responsibility for reading it uncharitably.

Making themselves clear is the responsibility of the person making the post. If only half of everyone reading what they said got their meaning, and the other half misunderstood, that's not an indictment on half of the reading audience; it's an indictment of the person who wasn't as clear as they intended to be. There's a reason why you're the only person defending that poster's interpretation, whereas more than one person found them to be unclear.

That's not at all what I said. Again, you've misunderstood someone's post, perhaps it's an indication of a pattern. What I actually said what that no matter how clearly you write something online, there will always be at least some people who misread it, for a wide variety of reasons. As such, the fact that someone has misread your intent is not evidence that you wrote it unclearly.

You've previously intimated that some posters are mistakenly interpreting someone else's post, with the implication that they might be doing so on purpose. So by that logic, perhaps you're the one who's deliberately misunderstood my post. See how it cuts both ways?

Likewise, leaving aside that what you wrote is an appeal to whataboutism, you can't write that other poster's lack of clarity off as "at least a few people will always misunderstand something," because this isn't an instance of some (implied small) percentage of people who just so happen to misread what was there. The post itself was markedly unclear in delivering its intent, in no small part because it fit with a previous pattern of posts from that individual which made major errors of fact. Hence, there was no presumption that hyperbole was being employed. As such, the misunderstanding was the poster's fault, not the readers.

If that's an "outlandish claim" in your book, I'd say your bar for what constitutes an outlandish claim is far too low to be useful in conversation.

If you think that's too low a bar for talking about an aspect of D&D on a D&D-specific forum, then I'd say you're not bringing much of value to the conversation.

I absolutely disagree with them on their interpretation of that. But you can't call it factually incorrect. That's a matter of opinion. You can believe their opinion is very misguided on a topic, but that doesn't make it not a matter of opinion. So again, that's not relevant here.

No, you can call it factually incorrect, because it is. That the good gods took part in the Cataclysm, rather than being "powerless to stop it," isn't a question of interpretation. It's what the lore tells us happened. Objectively stating something wrong as though it's correct is relevant here, because it establishes the pattern on that person's part of making outlandish claims that are easily dismissed if a few seconds' worth of research is done.

I never said disingenuous. I said uncharitable. And it absolutely is uncharitable, especially when the examples you provide of their "recent history of posting things that are wildly incorrect" are so very weak.

Except that they're not weak; quite the contrary, they're stronger than you're giving them credit for, which is disingenuous.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Every single Dragon+ article for years has highlighted the DM's Guild. I'm not sure how much more they could do to point it out to people. It's not like WotC has a lot of channels to communicate with fans anymore. And, IIRC, during the Covid lockdown, when they put a bunch of free stuff up on the WotC site, there were bunches of stuff from DM's Guild.

 

[Hussar]

And some posters did, which demonstrates that it's not as unclear as you think. Remember that you're the one who attempted to place 100% of the blame of any misunderstanding on the person writing the post, accepting zero responsibility for reading it uncharitably.
/snip

Bud, I've already deleted the offending post and clarified my point. There really is nothing left to discuss here. Please stop trying. It absolutely will not go anywhere. Pulling single lines out of a longer post and then arguing about that out of context is 100% on point for online discussions. It was my total bad for not being 100% clear with my words and assuming that people would try to understand what I was saying in context rather than focusing on a single, fairly innocuous point that really had nothing to do with what I was trying to say.

It happens. Leave it. You will not make any progress here. The point was missed, the point was clarified, communication resumes. Relitigating the whole thing over and over again is pointless.

 

[Alzrius]

There really is nothing left to discuss here. Please stop trying.

Amen to that. @Fifth Element given that the person whose post we're discussing wants to move on, I'm not going to be responding to any further replies on this topic. I hope you'll do the same.

 

[Velderan]

Every single Dragon+ article for years has highlighted the DM's Guild. I'm not sure how much more they could do to point it out to people. It's not like WotC has a lot of channels to communicate with fans anymore. And, IIRC, during the Covid lockdown, when they put a bunch of free stuff up on the WotC site, there were bunches of stuff from DM's Guild.

You're right, I completely forgot about the freebie COVID materials. I never really got into reading Dragon+, but it sounds like the new Starter Set has an ad so good to get new players informed about it early.