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]

OK, this is gatekeeping--you want the game to be unplayable for people who aren't familiar with the setting. That's not cool.

Dragonlance's narrative exists in one place and one place only: the novels. Everything else is entirely up to the table. Let's say you decide to run the very first module, Dragons of Despair, for your group--and have a TPK. Whoops! You broke the narrative fidelity. What if the PCs decide to keep the Blue Crystal Staff, or destroy it? What if the PCs don't care about finding a "true cleric"? Heck, the first chapter of the module is called "The Road Travels East." What if the players go west instead? All of that breaks the narrative.

There is literally no such thing as narrative fidelity in an RPG. All there is is background lore which may or may not have any actual meaning to the players, and the player's actions can and often should change that lore. Demanding that the game follow the novels or a set path is railroading to the extreme.

I told you, I don't care what people do in their own games. I just think the setting's lore should reflect what's been there, more or less. I don't care if people want orcs in  their Dragonlance. And the entire point of background information is that it's information about the past that hopefully informs the present. PCs actions can't change the past outside of time travel. They can should change the present, from whatever starting point the campaign begins at. How is that gatekeeping?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The Knights not having mustaches is a fantastic example of changes just for changes sake.

Because "you must have a mustache" doesn't really work for women. And women can join the Knights of Solamnia because WotC doesn't want the canonically good knights to be sexist.

See, not change for the sake of change. Also, those mustaches were ugly and an army of men with them looks ridiculous and doesn't look cool (which they should, they ride into battle on dragons). And "mustaches" is about the weakest distinguishing trait you can give to an order of knights.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ahh. So you would rather something never be updated over it being rebooted.

If those are my only two choices, and the reboot isn't going to acknowledge the original, then yes. What I would prefer is an update to the existing setting that updates the rules and adds to the lore without significantly changing the in-setting history. TSR did that for years, and WotC, through third party designers for DL and Ravenloft during the 3rd ed era, did it for years longer. This is not an insane, hyper-conservative ask in my mind.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If those are my only two choices, and the reboot isn't going to acknowledge the original, then yes. What I would prefer is an update to the existing setting that updates the rules and adds to the lore without significantly changing the in-setting history. TSR did that for years, and WotC, through third party designers for DL and Ravenloft during the 3rd ed era, did it for years longer. This is not an insane, hyper-conservative ask in my mind.

"I want things to stay the way they are/were" is the definition of conservative.

 

[mamba]

I have more recently heard people say things to the effect of "everything after I6 was a mistake", but that appears to be more of an OSR part of the fandom, who want an extremely specific style of play.

I am surprised they did not pick I4, as I4, 5 and 6 are all Hickman modules

Yeah, I'd go the other way and say anything before I6 is not how we play D&D today. Hickman won that one.

Earlier in the thread the question was what makes the core of DL and that essentially is it. DL was the first time a large continuous, epic story was introduced to D&D. Before that we had stuff like Caves of Chaos, everything changed with Hickman.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"I want things to stay the way they are/were" is the definition of conservative.

"I want to take things some people liked and change them to suit my personal tastes, and I feel justified in doing this because other people agree with me" isn't much better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am surprised they did not pick I4, as I4, 5 and 6 are all Hickman modules

Yeah, I'd go the other way and say anything before I6 is not how we play D&D today. Hickman won that one. Earlier in the thread the question was what makes the core of DL and that essentially it is, DL was the first time a large continues, epic story was introduced to D&D. Before that we had stuff like Caves of Chaos, everything changed with Hickman.

Yes, and that large, continuous, epic story is now essentially over, outside of whatever remaining novels WotC lets Weis and Hickman write for them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"I want to take things some people liked and change them to suit my personal tastes, and I feel justified in doing this because other people agree with me" isn't much better.

That's not my position. It's "that tiny thing that you for some reason think is instrumental in the identity of the setting actually isn't as important as you think it is, and the book not acknowledging that you think it's important doesn't mean that it won't be a good book/update of Dragonlance".

And the content in modern D&D is a popularity contest. The most popular opinion wins, for better or for worse. If banning Orcs for no apparent reason is popular, then that's what WotC will do. If it isn't, then they won't. If the majority of people want Psionics to be spellcasting, it will be. If the majority of people want Critical Successes/Fails to exist, they will in One D&D.

The solution that makes the most people happy is the correct one. Because anything else is gatekeeping fun for no reason other than tradition. Which is a terrible reason to restrict fun.

 

[mamba]

Yes, and that large, continuous, epic story is now essentially over, outside of whatever remaining novels WotC lets Weis and Hickman write for them.

That story was over with Dragons of Summer Flame in 1995 at the latest. You can argue that was a continuation, but for me it was the end.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, and that large, continuous, epic story is now essentially over, outside of whatever remaining novels WotC lets Weis and Hickman write for them.

Because the correct places for those stories are at your table with your players and in the novels that the authors right. Not in the required canon for playing the setting.