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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Why assume the DM is in the wrong here? Is there some rule I don't know about that insists that whatever a player wants comes first? I don't see any other way to take what you just said.

 

[mamba]

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.

yeah right… and the DM plays with players who also think that orcs do not belong in Krynn, everyone is happy

Note that it was one player who disagreed, not all of them. The others were perfectly happy to begin with

And quite frankly, I see no good reason why you would insist on playing an orc, there is nothing you cannot do by playing another race. So if you are so stubborn and unwilling to compromise, I am not sure I want you as a player. It is not everyone else’s job to make you happy, that is true for all involved.

 

[Stormonu]

As much as I try to be open about what my players want to run, sometimes I do have to put my foot down and say “no”. Usually, it’s a balance concern I don’t feel I can resolve, but I have had an instance or two of style clashes, or something that hard counters a campaign conceit. I’m not being malicious when I do it, I’m just trying to ensure everyone at the table is going to have fun and nothing is going to be too jarringly out of place. If the player disagrees strongly enough, it’s probably better if they don’t play or find someone else whose character idea would fit their game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And quite frankly, I see no good reason why you would insist on playing an orc, there is nothing you cannot do by playing another race. So if you are so stubborn and unwilling to compromise, I am not sure I want you as a player. It is not everyone else’s job to make you happy, that is true for all involved.

And many see no good reason not to allow an orc. What does it add besides needling the player?

 

[mamba]

And many see no good reason not to allow an orc. What does it add besides needling the player?

If you see no good reason not to, then allow it. There is no problem here. What good is insisting on an orc besides needling the DM…

Remember that this is a hypothetical. The only time there is a conflict would be if both sides feel strongly enough about it to rather walk away than accept it. That was the premise as this entire thing is otherwise moot.
And in that scenario (neither side compromises) the player is not in the right by default. Neither is the DM. Which is what I have been saying all along. No one is right or wrong here, they just do not belong in the same game.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

So basically, then, there's no problem whatsoever. If you were to run Dragonlance, your players agreed to play Dragonlance, you said no orcs, and one player said "but I wanna!" you'd be able to find a compromise or something. An irda, maybe, or a minotaur.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Why assume the DM is in the wrong here? Is there some rule I don't know about that insists that whatever a player wants comes first? I don't see any other way to take what you just said.

How am I assuming the DM is in the wrong? In the case where the player wanted to play a particular race and the DM wanted to ban it, @mamba gave one option: the player leaves.

There is another option: the DM leaves. Seems like it is in the interest of both the DM and the player to compromise (or at least ensure most of the players agree with their style).

 

[FrozenNorth]

If you see no good reason not to, then allow it. There is no problem here. What good is insisting on an orc besides needling the DM…

Well, first find out why the player wants to play an orc or a half-orc. If it is mechanics, why not have the player play a minotaur with orc mechanics?

If there is another reason, does it really change anything to replace the minotaurs of Taladas with orcs? They both fill the niche of large, brawly races.

 

[mamba]

Well, first find out why the player wants to play an orc or a half-orc. If it is mechanics, why not have the player play a minotaur with orc mechanics?

If there is another reason, does it really change anything to replace the minotaurs of Taladas with orcs? They both fill the niche of large, brawly races.

I feel you are missing the point. This was a hypothetical scenario in which the player insists on playing an orc in DL and the DM did not allow orcs. You do not need to convince me of anything here.

If the DM agreed, there would be no issue and there would be no discussion about this. Same if they both agreed that playing a minotaur accomplishes the same and the player then plays that.

The only question here is: if they both feel so strongly about it that neither compromises, who is right ? I am saying neither is, it just means they want different things from their session and should be in separate groups. It however certainly does mean that the player cannot play an orc in that DM's group, so they need to find a different one.

 

[mamba]

How am I assuming the DM is in the wrong? In the case where the player wanted to play a particular race and the DM wanted to ban it, @mamba gave one option: the player leaves.

There is another option: the DM leaves. Seems like it is in the interest of both the DM and the player to compromise (or at least ensure most of the players agree with their style).

agreed, both are options, but since there are more players than DMs and one out of 4 or so players disagreed while the others were fine (we certainly never heard anything about them agreeing or disagreeing with either side), I believe the more likely outcome is that one player leaving.

Personally I believe the whole argument is silly and compromise would be found, but that makes the entire argument moot. Guess it is time to bow out, there won't be anything new here and I said my piece. Now all I have to do is clear up misinterpretations and repeat what I already wrote.