Dragonlance Dragonlance Creators Reveal Why There Are No Orcs On Krynn

Talking to the Dragonlance Nexus, Dragonlance creators Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman revealed why the world of Krynn features no orcs -- in short, because they didn't want to copy Tolkien, and orcs were very much a 'Middle Earth' thing.

Weis told Trampas Whiteman that "Orcs were also viewed as very Middle Earth. We wanted something different." Hickman added that it was draconians which made Krynn stand out. Read more at the link below!

Why are there no Orcs in Krynn? Weis and Hickman give us the answer! - Dragonlance Nexus

Dragonhelm gets the scoop from Weis and Hickman on why there are no orcs in Krynn. Read More

dragonlancenexus.com

 

[Minigiant]

For the record, "I don't like X" is a perfectly good reason regardless of anything else. We don't have to justify our preferences to meet someone else's standards.

I agree 100%.

All I say is that a DM, World builder, or Setting writer should replace X with Y if X fulfills a core or base mechanical assumption of the game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because the game takes too little time teaching people how to DM and too much time telling them that just by volunteering, they are always right and special and don't have to care about the desires of their friends/audience and calling that 'DM empowerment to cement that feeling and terrible culture?

Right up until you said ‘DM empowerment’ I thought you were talking about players there.
Edit: i missed the words ‘just by volunteering’ but my point stands, I think players are told they are special and unique and can have every option their way they want far too much.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If adding orcs or half-orcs to Krynn somehow impacted the feel of the setting, then I’d say to not do it unless comfortable with such a change. But I’m struggling to see how doing so would really substantially change anything about Krynn at all.

The lack of orcs is not what should be appealing about playing/running Dragonlance.

I think far too often people focus on entirely the wrong things when they worry about this stuff. Most settings are not so fragile that they can’t accommodate a new idea or two. Plus, it’s all made up, so canon can just wander off and die.

 

[mamba]

So maybe people should be focusing on the things that Dragonlance has, and why those things are so cool that orcs (or tieflings! People have forgotten about them) aren't needed.

I’ve said nothing about should or shouldn’t

 

[Micah Sweet]

If adding orcs or half-orcs to Krynn somehow impacted the feel of the setting, then I’d say to not do it unless comfortable with such a change. But I’m struggling to see how doing so would really substantially change anything about Krynn at all.

The lack of orcs is not what should be appealing about playing/running Dragonlance.

I think far too often people focus on entirely the wrong things when they worry about this stuff. Most settings are not so fragile that they can’t accommodate a new idea or two. Plus, it’s all made up, so canon can just wander off and die.

You don't get to decide what is appealing about playing a given setting.

 

[Azzy]

I think far too often people focus on entirely the wrong things when they worry about this stuff. Most settings are not so fragile that they can’t accommodate a new idea or two. Plus, it’s all made up, so canon can just wander off and die.

Again, both ways are perfectly valid approaches.

 

[mamba]

I don't have a desire for races to align to ability scores. I just don't want less options than the PHB offers me. So if you take something away, add something new to replace it.

-half-orc +minotaur, -halfling +kender, seems to work out fine

 

[Demetrios1453]

That's a strawman. And lots of hyperbole.

It's a social game where everyone is there to have fun. But the reality is the DM does far more work than any other player, and they (should) communicate what the expectations are for the game. You as a player can choose to participate or not. End of story. That doesn't mean DMs are always right and special and don't have to care about players, or are "alphas" or other such nonsense.

I was about to bring this up myself. At the very start of things, when the discussion of a new campaign is brought up, the prospective DM needs to bring up any special rules (including, but not limited to, racial choices) that they plan for the campaign. There can be give and take here, but the DM is the one making up the campaign world (or presenting one if it's a published campaign), so some weight has to be given to the DM's vision here, especially if most of the players agree and buy into that vision. If at that point, a player insists on something different, they're breaking the table's implicit social contract and should definitely be called out on it (if lots of players want something different, well, then there isn't an implicit social contract, and the campaign will likely just need to be abandoned before starting).

The real question then is - if most players have bought into the DM's vision for a campaign, but one wants to disrupt that vision by insisting on playing a race that isn't part of that vision, and by doing so ruins the fun of everyone else in the group, why should they, as some posters here are insisting, be allowed to do so?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let me bring this back. Can we agree:

1. no reasonable request should be reasonably declined*
2. everyone is there to have fun
3. DMs put more work into running the game than the players
4. there is an inferred agreement when playing in a game

* Point 1 seems to be the tough one. No one agrees with what is reasonable. For me, I think if someone says they don't like X, then I shouldn't try to convince them they are badwrong for not liking X, or to demand they explain to my satisfaction why they don't. And if someone is offering to share their pizza with me and they don't like pineapple on their pizza, I shouldn't demand that they put it on just for me. I'm free to get my own. By agreeing their offer, I'm agreeing that there won't be pineapple on it nor should I expect there to be. If there is a way for all of us to get what we want, that's ideal. But sometimes it's not possible, and I don't think we should paint people as bad people for not doing what we want.

 

[Cadence]

Because the game takes too little time teaching people how to DM and too much time telling them that just by volunteering, they are always right and special and don't have to care about the desires of their friends/audience and calling that 'DM empowerment to cement that feeling and terrible culture?

Spec Fic, Spec Fic, and I've give you the last one, but always going to Jedi fits the pattern and the GL Corp is at least creatively trying to use Sci-Fi to make it look like playing a race from the book is unreasonable, so credit.

In three of those cases I had the DM offer a compromise that gave the mechanics the player was asking for. In the follow-up I mentioned things like the half-ogre (suggested by others) as a compromise to the looks and mechanics. I think an odd looking human with modified mechanics was also offered?

Do those suffice for you as being reasonable DM replies?

Or Are you saying that a DM offering such is being unreasonable in your opinion? (Iirc a post or two ago you implied that looking a bit different with a bit different mechanics was what you were asking for, and not a whole organization).