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

 

[Ixal]

I personally disagree with the notion that setting "loyalism/purism" is good or should be acknowledged in a positive light. And I'm not certain that the involvement of Weiss and Hickman would be good for the new book or help with its development given their recent history with WotC and some of the problematic aspects of the original setting and novels.

And I accept your apology.

And why not? You are basically arguing that there should not be settings at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Theme is a combination of genre and style. Horror is a theme. War is a theme. Noir is a theme. "No orcs" isn't a theme.

It could be a theme, but usually it's part of a theme.

It's not even part of a theme.

There are multiple themes that it can be a part of, including the Dragonlance theme of "Not everything is present in this setting." We see that theme in the elimination of certain races, classes, orcs, huge numbers of D&D monsters, etc.

What theme has a cornerstone of "no orcs?"

The cornerstone of the theme, "Orcs are not present in this setting, because this setting and its campaign is about the creation and rise of orcs."

 

[Velderan]

I personally disagree with the notion that setting "loyalism/purism" is good or should be acknowledged in a positive light. And I'm not certain that the involvement of Weiss and Hickman would be good for the new book or help with its development given their recent history with WotC and some of the problematic aspects of the original setting and novels.

And I accept your apology.

To be fair, Weis and Hickman had to have their current book Dragons of Deceit approved by WotC before it could be published so they've already established a relationship of being willing to have their material looked at for things perceived as problematic. There were no gully dwarves for instance, but kender were featured.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok, perhaps I'm not being clear. Let me try explain it by other means from a thread I know you're familiar with:

I'm suggesting the pizzeria state on their menu their speciality pizzas.
And a note at the bottom of the menu explaining that any additional toppings such as pineapple or the removal of toppings can be discussed with management to see if available.

You're suggesting the pizzeria not have any specialities or menu, instead the customer comes in and orders their tailor-made pizza which base is frozen and store-bought.

Here in CT you can order pizza by the topping OR specialties but not all pizzarias have specilities...

a place we used to order way back when had a "meat supreme" pizza that was Peperoni, Hamburg, Sausage, Ham, and Bacon. The pizza place down the street from my house didn't have a meat special pizza, and the one that is cheap a bit father away doesn't either... but I can order a pizza with Peperoni, Hamburg, Sausage, Ham, and Bacon. when I went to visit my dad 5ish years ago he ordered a meat lover pizza from a place near him and it was just peperoni sausage and bacon.

At any point I can order Peperoni, Hamburg, Sausage, Ham, and Bacon... in fact I bet I could go to any pizza place in America and order that.

 

[bedir than]

So just say: Those races exist on Krynn x,y,z,..., if the DM wants to include other races he is free to do so (although that is already covered under rule 0 anyway).

All Rule 0 reminders are good

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And why not? You are basically arguing that there should not be settings at all.

Ha. No. In no way is being anti-setting-purists/loyalists "arguing that there should not be settings at all". Where did you get that idea?

Maybe "setting purists/loyalists" mean different things to you (I tried to look up the terms online real quick but couldn't find anything), but I've only ever seen them applied to the most extreme fans of the setting that oppose any and all changes to the setting and run the setting as close to RAW as they possibly can at their own tables. You know, the kind of fans that put the "fan" in "fanatic".

There are plenty of settings I like. Eberron's probably my favorite setting. I like Exandria, I think it's easily better than the Forgotten Realms. I'm fond of Ravenloft and Spelljammer and would play Dark Sun in a heartbeat if/when it ever gets officially updated to 5e. But I'm not a "setting purist/loyalist" and I think that they are bad for the settings that they like.

To be fair, Weis and Hickman had to have their current book Dragons of Deceit approved by WotC before it could be published so they've already established a relationship of being willing to have their material looked at for things perceived as problematic. There were no gully dwarves for instance, but kender were featured.

And WotC asking Weis and Hickman to change parts of the novels eventually led to a lawsuit. We don't know the details, but I'm fairly certain that Weiss's and Hickman's involvement would not have ended well. At the very least it would be extremely awkward to work with the company and people you sued.

 

[Ixal]

Ha. No. In no way is being anti-setting-purists/loyalists "arguing that there should not be settings at all". Where did you get that idea?

Maybe "setting purists/loyalists" mean different things to you (I tried to look up the terms online real quick but couldn't find anything), but I've only ever seen them applied to the most extreme fans of the setting that oppose any and all changes to the setting and run the setting as close to RAW as they possibly can at their own tables. You know, the kind of fans that put the "fan" in "fanatic".

There are plenty of settings I like. Eberron's probably my favorite setting. I like Exandria, I think it's easily better than the Forgotten Realms. I'm fond of Ravenloft and Spelljammer and would play Dark Sun in a heartbeat if/when it ever gets officially updated to 5e. But I'm not a "setting purist/loyalist" and I think that they are bad for the settings that they like.

And WotC asking Weis and Hickman to change parts of the novels eventually led to a lawsuit. We don't know the details, but I'm fairly certain that Weiss's and Hickman's involvement would not have ended well. At the very least it would be extremely awkward to work with the company and people you sued.

Without there being a defined "pure" core there can't be a setting. To have one you must have a list of "this happened" and "this exist". What you argue is that this is bad because it excludes things in order to stay "pure".
You can't have it both. Either you have settings which also means having defined what exists or doesn't exist in that setting or you have no setting as nothing is fixed and everything is arbitrary.

Even more, you are saying that fans of a setting who thus like the borders it has drawn are bad. Way to attack people.
More and more I have the impression that you are not debating as a fan or even as a player, but because of some weird ideology where not having everything in a setting being exclusion and only allowed when supporting the correct ideological message like in Dark Sun.

 

[Alzrius]

And WotC asking Weis and Hickman to change parts of the novels eventually led to a lawsuit. We don't know the details, but I'm fairly certain that Weiss's and Hickman's involvement would not have ended well. At the very least it would be extremely awkward to work with the company and people you sued.

Actually, we know a great deal of the details, since the complaint that was filed in the suit is a matter of public record; a great deal of it was posted here, and it states that the reason the lawsuit was filed was because WotC was refusing to approve any new drafts from the authors (effectively preventing publication) but was refusing to formally terminate their contract, essentially killing the book deal without technically ending it, and so avoiding paying the termination fee to Weis and Hickman. That's what they sued over.

Of course, it all ended with the parties working things out on their own, and the first book was published with the others likely on the way.

 

[Maxperson]

Without there being a defined "pure" core there can't be a setting. To have one you must have a list of "this happened" and "this exist". What you argue is that this is bad because it excludes things in order to stay "pure".
You can't have it both. Either you have settings which also means having defined what exists or doesn't exist in that setting or you have no setting as nothing is fixed and everything is arbitrary.

That's not true. A setting is just where the PCs interact with the game rules. Without set definitions to differentiate a setting from the others you end up with generic setting #475821039, not the lack of any setting at all.

 

[AnotherGuy]

To be fair, Weis and Hickman had to have their current book Dragons of Deceit approved by WotC before it could be published so they've already established a relationship of being willing to have their material looked at for things perceived as problematic. There were no gully dwarves for instance, but kender were featured.

Oh that is interesting. So are the rights of the setting owned by WotC and does that mean WotC makes revenue off each book sold?