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

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I know nothing about MtG or Theros, I went with the chromatic dragons because of the multiples of 5.

If you know nothing about the subject, you probably shouldn't be debating it. At least not without doing the work to learn about it.

Just googled it and funnily enough it is even the exact same colors, and yes, that is just a superficial similarity.

Yes, that is a funny coincidence.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

yes, and needing multiples of X in one game is not a major hurdle for adopting it to any other ruleset, esp. if that other ruleset has no such limitation.

I grant you that given the quirks of the intended ruleset, there might be some minor adjustments needed when porting it from one to the other, but we are not talking about fundamentally different ways to create settings here

Again, you're showing that you know nothing about the subject you're arguing about. The colors of magic aren't just "needing multiples of 5 built into the world", they're fundamental to the gameplay and worlds of M:tG.

Is there anything in Theros that makes it incompatible with D&D ?

I have never, ever said anything like that. I'm saying that the settings are designed with different assumptions, not that a M:tG setting can't be converted to D&D (Theros, Ravnica, Strixhaven) or vice-versa (Forgotten Realms).

If I wanted a human centric greek mythology setting for D&D, is there any reason I could not have restricted races very similarly because of that goal?

Nope. But greek mythology was made before D&D, so that wouldn't be a setting designed for D&D. That would be a Greek Mythology setting converted to the D&D ruleset.

Dragonlance is a D&D setting made with D&D in mind. The distinction is important.

I guess this boils down to: how important is it for me while designing the setting that it supports everything from the PHB, and I am absolutely free to answer that with ‘not all that much’. We have LotR settings with a 5e ruleset, I doubt those cared

And those are Lord of the Rings games. Not D&D games. Just like you can play Star Wars using the D&D system if you homebrew enough. You're no longer playing D&D, you're playing Star Wars. If you mod Skyrim to the point that it's an entirely different game, it is an entirely different game.

 

[Maxperson]

And my point is that the reasoning behind building the system with specifically 15 gods shows a fundamental difference between the worldbuilding of M:tG and D&D settings.

A D&D world can choose to just have 15 gods. That's fine. My homebrew setting has just 15 gods. But that's because I think worlds where the players can't remember all of the gods because there are several dozen/hundreds of them is bad for TTRPGs (cough, Toril, cough).

I'm obviously not saying that a D&D world can't choose to have 15 or 10 or 5 or 0 gods in it. I'm saying that M:tG settings are required to have multiples of 5 tied to the different colors built into fundamental aspects of the world (the monsters, gods, factions, races, etc).

Okay, but you haven't yet explained how that makes a difference in turning it into a D&D setting? How is that reasoning making the setting any different than one where 15 gods were chosen for a setting designed for D&D?

You are totally incorrect.

You keep saying that, but you've provided no proof or explanation for why that is so. All you've done is declare that the reason behind the design is somehow important and makes 15 gods for Theros different than 15 gods for Maztica(didn't count them, just making a point).

On the other hand I've shown how there's no effective difference, making a setting a setting. The decision making process doesn't matter to the setting mechanics used to play it. There isn't an iota of difference in D&D game play due to 15 gods chosen because it's a multiple of 5 MtG colors or 15 gods chosen as part of the design of a D&D setting. Both will play identically.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

First, Theros has non-human races.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

Second, the limitations on race isn't any different from the limitations on race for Dark Sun, which was designed for D&D.

Yes, it is. Dark Sun admits that Orcs, Gnomes, and other PHB races used to exist. They were just genocided by the human supremacists that served the Dark Lord. They're still a part of the setting, they're just a thing of the past.

Sure "they're all dead" and "they never existed in the first place" have the same effect on the options that the players can choose, but they're not the same from a worldbuilding standpoint.

Nor is it different from the limitations in the Council of Wyrms D&D setting. And a number of others.

I'm not familiar with the Council of Wyrms, so I can't argue against that aspect of your argument.

Why is a limitation on the number of gods for Theros different from limitations on the number of gods for a D&D setting?

What limitations on the number of gods? As far as I know, the only official settings that have actually restricted the number of gods are settings that use the Dawn War pantheon. And "these gods exist because they're different colors of magic" and "these gods exist because we don't want to make it impossible for the players to keep them straight" are very different worldbuilding philosophies.

Why is the limitation on races in Theros different from limitations on race for D&D settings?

See above.

You keep saying that you design these settings differently, but have provided nothing that is actually done differently. What is done for Theros the MtG setting that is not also done for some D&D setting either official or homebrewed?

Wait, you want me to somehow prove that Theros is fundamentally different from any homebrewed world ever? No, I'm not engaging in that. I can't prove a negative.

Theros has 15 gods specifically because of how the colors of M:tG works. Theros restricts the D&D races because it wasn't originally designed to be a D&D setting. Most of the monsters in the Monster Manual and races in the PHB aren't from Greek Mythology, so they wouldn't fit a Theros campaign. That's a fundamentally different issue from "this D&D world doesn't have Orcs because we don't want to be too similar to Tolkien, even though D&D Orcs have changed a lot in the past 40 years and are no longer always-evil monsters". "A Greek-Mythology-inspired setting designed for M:tG that got converted to D&D 5e" is going to have very different distinctions from the core of D&D than "a D&D setting designed for D&D that takes inspiration from fantasy books that influenced D&D and includes a ton of the iconic D&D races and monsters".

Theros was not designed to be a D&D setting. Dragonlance was.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Okay, but you haven't yet explained how that makes a difference in turning it into a D&D setting? How is that reasoning making the setting any different than one where 15 gods were chosen for a setting designed for D&D?

Because it outright excludes most of the monsters in the MM and races in the PHB. It gets to do that because it wasn't designed to be a D&D setting. Dragonlance doesn't get the same leniency because it's fundamentally a D&D setting.

You keep saying that, but you've provided no proof or explanation for why that is so. All you've done is declare that the reason behind the design is somehow important and makes 15 gods for Theros different than 15 gods for Maztica(didn't count them, just making a point).

On the other hand I've shown how there's no effective difference, making a setting a setting. The decision making process doesn't matter to the setting mechanics used to play it. There isn't an iota of difference in D&D game play due to 15 gods chosen because it's a multiple of 5 MtG colors or 15 gods chosen as part of the design of a D&D setting. Both will play identically.

And you're only viewing this from a player/DM perspective and not from the perspective of a worldbuilder/game designer. The reasoning behind why things are the way they are matters to the topic of what gets included in the setting book.

Sure, whether or not the setting has 15 gods doesn't matter to the DM or player. It does matter to the people that made the setting. The setting has to have 15 gods (or another multiple of 5) because of how M:tG works. It doesn't change the experience of playing the game from the perspective of a DM or player that only know the setting casually. But it's extremely important to the people that make the setting. There's no effective difference at the table, but there's an extremely effective difference when the world is being made.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The point is that the setting is designed in a specific way because it was originally made for M:tG and not D&D. I'm not saying that having just 15 gods is worse than the dozens/hundreds that some other worlds have, I'm saying that the reason it just has those 15 gods is because of a fundamental difference between the WotC's design philosophies for M:tG and D&D.

"Settings are settings are settings" is complete BS, because a setting designed for M:tG has to take the 5 colors of M:tG into account. D&D doesn't. Thus, D&D settings are objectively designed in a fundamentally different way from M:tG settings.

Dragonlance has 21 gods. Dark Sun has none. Both were designed before MtG was invented. Different gods and theology is one of the ways settings are different from each other (and if they aren't different, then there is no point in having them). It would be inappropriate to play a cleric of Gruumsh in any of them.

It doesn't matter why Theros has that many gods from D&D perspective. It just does. Other MtG settings don't specifiy how many gods they have, but Theros isn't just a MtG setting, it's a setting based on Greek myth, and in Greek myth the gods are important characters.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it outright excludes most of the monsters in the MM and races in the PHB.

So does Dragonlance. Look at the 1e Dragonlance Adventures hardcover. It lists the monsters encountered on Krynn on the Unified Ansalon Encounter Chart and the vast majority of D&D monsters are not on that list.

Dragonlance doesn't get the same leniency because it's fundamentally a D&D setting.

Why? Why must D&D settings include every option?

And you're only viewing this from a player/DM perspective and not from the perspective of a worldbuilder/game designer. The reasoning behind why things are the way they are matters to the topic of what gets included in the setting book.

I'm not. I'm looking a this as a car is a car, whether you buy a Toyota or a Ford. The design intent behind them doesn't matter in the end, because both cars get you to point B just the same.

Sure, whether or not the setting has 15 gods doesn't matter to the DM or player. It does matter to the people that made the setting. The setting has to have 15 gods (or another multiple of 5) because of how M:tG works. It doesn't change the experience of playing the game from the perspective of a DM or player that only know the setting casually. But it's extremely important to the people that make the setting. There's no effective difference at the table, but there's an extremely effective difference when the world is being made.

The bolded part is literally the only important thing to a setting. The experience of playing the game is all that matters. If it's the same whether a setting was designed first for MtG or first for D&D, then a setting is a setting is a setting. What went on in the heads of the designers just doesn't matter, nor is what was important to them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Dragonlance has 21 gods. Dark Sun has none. Both were designed before MtG was invented. Different gods and theology is one of the ways settings are different from each other (and if they aren't different, then there is no point in having them). It would be inappropriate to play a cleric of Gruumsh in any of them.

Oh, thanks for bringing that up! That actually helps my argument!

Dragonlance's number of gods being a multiple of three is because of it being designed to fit D&D's alignment system. It has 3 different pantheons, one for Good, one for Evil, one for Neutral. All of them have 7 gods in them.

Theros has 15 gods because of the Colors of Mana/Magic. Dragonlance has 21 gods because of how it focuses on the Good-Evil axis of D&D alignment. You're further supporting my argument that "the system a setting is designed for alters important details of it".

It doesn't matter why Theros has that many gods from D&D perspective. It just does. Other MtG settings don't specifiy how many gods they have, but Theros isn't just a MtG setting, it's a setting based on Greek myth, and in Greek myth the gods are important characters.

It's a Greek Mythology setting designed to fit M:tG. It has 15 gods for the reason Amonkhet has 5. The Colors of Magic/Mana.

Dragonlance's gods are sorted into one of three groups because of the Good-Evil axis of the D&D's alignment system.

The Outlands in Planescape have 16 Gatetowns because they're based off of the planes of the Great Wheel, which are tied to D&D's alignment system.

System affects worldbuilding. Dragonlance and Theros were designed with different systems in mind, so they function differently. Theros wasn't designed to be a D&D setting, so it gets to be treated with different assumptions than a D&D world would.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So does Dragonlance. Look at the 1e Dragonlance Adventures hardcover. It lists the monsters encountered on Krynn on the Unified Ansalon Encounter Chart and the vast majority of D&D monsters are not on that list.

I was talking about 5e. In 5e, the only settings that outright exclude races are Ravnica and Theros. None of the others restrict them, and the M:tG worlds get to restrict them because they're from a different system.

Why? Why must D&D settings include every option?

Why must D&D settings arbitrarily ban options that could be fun? Removing options is fine if there's a good reason for it. Dragonlance used to have a pretty good reason (they didn't want to be too similar to Lord of the Rings), but that doesn't work anymore because Orcs have changed.

I'm not. I'm looking a this as a car is a car, whether you buy a Toyota or a Ford. The design intent behind them doesn't matter in the end, because both cars get you to point B just the same.

If you're going to ask the makers of a car why it works in a specific way and why a newer version can't do X thing, having an understanding of how the thing gets made is necessary.

The bolded part is literally the only important thing to a setting. The experience of playing the game is all that matters. If it's the same whether a setting was designed first for MtG or first for D&D, then a setting is a setting is a setting. What went on in the heads of the designers just doesn't matter, nor is what was important to them.

It's not the only thing important in designing a setting. It's the only thing that matters at a table, but how the food gets delivered is important to the meal.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

System affects worldbuilding.

Yes it does. Dragonlance was designed for 1st edition, when (for example) a ban on cleric spellcasting ruled out most sources of essential healing, and thus mattered. Now, how to capture the feel of those 1st edition rules is a challenge. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the setting feel distinct.

Dragonlance and Theros were designed with different systems in mind, so they function differently. Theros wasn't designed to be a D&D setting, so it gets to be treated with different assumptions than a D&D world would.

Given that it was originally designed for a different system, what is notable about Theros is how similar it is to D&D worlds like Dark Sun. They take what is there, add some stuff in, and take other stuff out.

how the food gets delivered is important to the meal.

No. No it isn't. That makes no sense.