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

 

[Faolyn]

I already told you I would compromise with them (and the other non-DL heritages) not actually being in the adventure. You win.

Why do you see it as winning versus losing?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you see it as winning versus losing?

Because it seemed to me like the poster was trying to convince/badger me into being ok with orks in DL. I'm willing compromise to an extent, so they "win" (ie, succeed in their goal).

 

[Velderan]

It may have happened already in preorder.

Any idea if there is any reliable sales data available for 5E books? I know there's stuff like Amazon sales rankings and stuff to help gauge popularity, but I'd really love to know which books have actually sold the best.

 

[Faolyn]

Because it seemed to me like the poster was trying to convince/badger me into being ok with orks in DL. I'm willing compromise to an extent, so they "win" (ie, succeed in their goal).

Do your tables do session 0s? Because it almost sounds like there's little communication between everyone there as to what options are acceptable at the table, and that either the players are helpless to the whims of the DM or the DM is helpless to the whims of the players.

At my tables, when we start a game, we discuss as a group what sort of options are available. If the person running the game really wants to refuse a certain option, they say why, and if another person wants that option, they can explain why, and compromises are made, and everyone ends up happy.

 

[mamba]

Exactly,

Some people forget the DM is a player, not a god or daddy figure.

It is not collaborative for ANY one player to 'put their foot down' and demand their way of playing is the way everyone has to.

If that is your intent, I agree. You however were more the toxic player who insists on something (playing an orc) when everyone else either did not care or was opposed to it (with at a minimum the DM being opposed as otherwise the player would simply be one)

I'm pushing back against the philosophy of DM supremacy that has been poisoning D&D since its inception and I see constantly pushed.

maybe find a better angle then, because one / any player becoming that supreme position instead is not a solution either.

Also I did not see that pushed here, I saw pushback to your notion that the player should be able to play anything they want, regardless of how others feel about it

 

[Velderan]

Do your tables do session 0s? Because it almost sounds like there's little communication between everyone there as to what options are acceptable at the table, and that either the players are helpless to the whims of the DM or the DM is helpless to the whims of the players.

At my tables, when we start a game, we discuss as a group what sort of options are available. If the person running the game really wants to refuse a certain option, they say why, and if another person wants that option, they can explain why, and compromises are made, and everyone ends up happy.

I like to start the conversation earlier than a session 0. I setup the Roll20 campaign for my upcoming game a couple weeks ago for a game we're planning to start running after New Years when our current campaign should be finished. I have a few forum posts on it for us to discuss campaign themes such as playable races/classes, what books people can select feats and backgrounds from, how far do people want to take languages, and a few other general topics so people can chime in their thoughts. As DM, I started each conversation with what I was thinking since the campaign was my idea but I'm open to suggestions for tweaks to make the game better fit the game my friends want to play for 3 hours a week for the next 18 or so months. There typically isn't a lot of disagreement on what I've suggested, because they trust I know what kind of game they'll like. The biggest conversation so far is how much do we want to deal with languages and it's likely not going to be how I originally intended them to be handled. I'll get over it. lol

By the time we have the actual session 0, it's just summarizing what we've all agreed on and someone won't end up being disappointed the campaign I will have already invested a lot of time into prepping isn't what they were hoping for.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The player has the right to accept or reject that choice or have a discussion with the DM about changing it. But if the two cannot agree, the player needs to find a different DM.

Naw, the player just starts their own game, and the DM’s other players switch games because the new game allows them to play the characters they want.

 

[darjr]

Any idea if there is any reliable sales data available for 5E books? I know there's stuff like Amazon sales rankings and stuff to help gauge popularity, but I'd really love to know which books have actually sold the best.

I wish!

There are things like best seller lists and OAR and the hobby retail survey to help.

 

[Dire Bare]

So whose "vision" wins out here? Does the DM give in to the player? Does the player harangue the DM? Mope at the table?

Who's vision "wins"? That answer is going to vary based on the table. But I think it's a poor way to frame the question. D&D is a collaborative game, but it is also traditionally asymmetrical with the bulk of the worldbuilding left with the DM. But increasingly, not everybody plays that way.

If you, as the DM, come up with a setting idea and then invite players, providing a synopsis of your planned campaign (including available player options) . . . and players show up asking for something different . . . . well, they didn't read or didn't grok your initial pitch. The next step should be a conversation where either player (DM or character) might compromise or collaborate to arrive at something everybody can enjoy. How far, as the DM, should you compromise? The line-in-the-sand is going to be different for everybody, depends on the campaign and the people involved, but . . . . I'd lean towards being open-minded with a willingness to compromise.

But if you are playing a D&D campaign, that doesn't stray too far from the Standard Fantasy Campaign (which Dragonlance doesn't) and tell players "NO" when they ask to play orcs, drow, dragonborn, goliath, tieflings, or etc . . . . I hope you have better reasons than "tradition" or just "there are no orcs in DL because reasons". I mean, you can do that, it's your campaign, but . . . . as a player I avoid those types of tables.

If you're playing something a bit further from the Standard Fantasy Campaign, like Dark Sun or Birthright, then you might want to be more firm about what options are appropriate or aren't. Or if you are running a focused campaign, perhaps where everybody plays mages at a mage school or something.

If you are part of a group of friends who play together regularly . . . . I'd encourage you to be even more open-minded and willing to collaborate or compromise. Whether you are the forever-DM or the group trades off DMing responsibilities.

I have good friends who love D&D, like I do, but we NEVER play together. Because I long ago tired of the autocratic "This is my table, my rules" kind of DMing style. I enjoy a more open and collaborative style, where DM's aren't so precious about the story or campaign setting, and don't prioritize that over having fun with the players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do your tables do session 0s? Because it almost sounds like there's little communication between everyone there as to what options are acceptable at the table, and that either the players are helpless to the whims of the DM or the DM is helpless to the whims of the players.

At my tables, when we start a game, we discuss as a group what sort of options are available. If the person running the game really wants to refuse a certain option, they say why, and if another person wants that option, they can explain why, and compromises are made, and everyone ends up happy.

We do have session 0, and we play homebrew anyway, so this stuff generally doesn't come up much personally. But sometimes people do have differences about the kind of game they want to play or DM, and disputes don't always result in compromise. Either party can and should walk away in that instance rather than feel socially forced to participate. As the DM does quite a bit more work than any player in every game I've even been part of on either side, making them run a game they don't enjoy is particularly egregious IMO.