Dragonlance Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed

Over on DND Beyond Amy Dallen and Eugenio Vargas discuss the beginning of Shadow of ther Dragon Queen and provide some advice on running it.

Running a Session Zero for Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen

When starting a new adventure, it's a good idea to get on the same page as your party. Here's how to run a session zero for the upcoming Dragonlance adv...

www.dndbeyond.com

This epic war story begins with an invitation to a friend's funeral and three optional prelude encounters that guide you into the world of Krynn. Amy Dallen is joined by Eugenio Vargas to share some details about how these opening preludes work and some advice on using them in your own D&D games.

There is also information on the three short 'prelude' adventures which introduce players to the world of Krynn:

• Eye in the Sky -- ideal for sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, or others seeking to become members of the Mages of High Sorcery.
• Broken Silence -- ideal for clerics, druids, paladins, and other characters with god-given powers.
• Scales of War -- ideal for any character and reveals the mysterious draconians.

The article discusses Session Zero for the campaign and outlines what to expect in a Dragonlance game -- war, death, refugees, and so on.

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then I doubt you actually understand why someone would want to play with the rare non-Evil black mage robe. Or the extent that people dislike the concept of being restricted to an evil alignment for an option that's supposed to be playable in a world where you're supposed to be fighting for Good. Not everyone wants to play Raistlin.

The "Monster Manual Clause" as you call it, assumes that the table is playing with alignment. And playing without alignment is pretty common, especially among newer players, IME.

Are you "supposed" to be fighting for good, or is that an option?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then having a 'restriction' would be even easier for most tables to ignore yes?

Not having it in the first place is the easiest way to ignore it.

 

[Scribe]

Not having it in the first place is the easiest way to ignore it.

Yes, at the cost of people who want it. It's OK, we won't agree.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Its actually quite easy to appease the modern community. Make a  new campaign setting that appeals to them. Stop doing retreads. Like Nentir Vale. Great setting. Would have liked it even more if it wasn't expressed through 4th ed only.

I highly doubt that there's any new setting that would appease the modern community. 5e has new official D&D settings. There are the 3 M:tG setting conversions and the two Critical Role settings, which often get dismissed just because WotC didn't make them. Radiant Citadel is a new setting, and you saw the knee-jerk reactions to it before it even came out. The modern D&D community is still having the "Linear Figher, Quadratic Wizard" arguments that have been going on for decades.

There is not a single setting concept that appeases the entire modern community. There are people that want older settings to be updated. There are people that want older settings to change for the better. There are people that will refuse to accept any changes to the older settings and would rather that the other groups don't get to have fun in them because of their previous "canon".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, at the cost of people who want it. It's OK, we won't agree.

It basically doesn't exist in 5e anyways and is incredibly easy to add back in if you like it.

 

[Scribe]

There are people that want older settings to change for the better. There are people that will refuse to accept any changes to the older settings and would rather that the other groups don't get to have fun in them because of their previous "canon".

Not loaded language at all...

It basically doesn't exist in 5e anyways and is incredibly easy to add back in if you like it.

Just ignore it, usually are doing it for monsters already.

The sad thing is, there isn't even compromise possible because of the slanted language the topic is framed in as demonstrated here.

It's easy enough to satisfy both of us. /shrug

 

[Micah Sweet]

I highly doubt that there's any new setting that would appease the modern community. 5e has new official D&D settings. There are the 3 M:tG setting conversions and the two Critical Role settings, which often get dismissed just because WotC didn't make them. Radiant Citadel is a new setting, and you saw the knee-jerk reactions to it before it even came out. The modern D&D community is still having the "Linear Figher, Quadratic Wizard" arguments that have been going on for decades.

There is not a single setting concept that appeases the entire modern community. There are people that want older settings to be updated. There are people that want older settings to change for the better. There are people that will refuse to accept any changes to the older settings and would rather that the other groups don't get to have fun in them because of their previous "canon".

I thought you were referring to the great pool of new players WotC is trying to court, not a super-set of every human being who's a D&D fan. IMO, WotC should make a new setting for new players with those modern sensibilities you want. Let the rest play what they want; we're a drop in the bucket at this point anyway.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not loaded language at all...

When people make a big deal about mustaches and an optional rule that isn't even mechanically important in 5e being ignored, then that's certainly what it feels like to the people that would like the setting to improve.

Just ignore it, usually are doing it for monsters already.

The sad thing is, there isn't even compromise possible because of the slanted language the topic is framed in as demonstrated here.

It's easy enough to satisfy both of us. /shrug

I don't think it is. From my discussions with you, it seems pretty difficult to appease both of us, when what I want is Alignment to not be important and not built into any mechanics and what you want is for it to be built into mechanics and restricting player options. Those seem completely contradictory to me. There's not much to compromise when it's "it needs to have this" and "it shouldn't have this".

I thought you were referring to the great pool of new players WotC is trying to court, not a super-set of every human being who's a D&D fan. IMO, WotC should make a new setting for new players with those modern sensibilities you want. Let the rest play what they want; we're a drop in the bucket at this point anyway.

Yeah, the modern community isn't a hivemind. Just go to the younger communities online. Younger players have just as diverse of playstyles and gaming preferences as older players do. It's pretty hard to appease a giant group of diverse people with a new setting. That's why updating older settings, IMO, is overall a good idea. There's a lot of younger players that will enjoy core parts of older setting. They might not agree with all of it and might prefer some parts of it to change, but the younger community was disappointed with Spelljammer just like the older community because they wanted more. Tons of newer players love older settings. I have been playing the game for way less than you, but I love most of Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft. I liked Spelljammer so much that I homebrewed my own conversion of it for 5e before the new books came out, which was a ton of work and a nightmare to do.

Newer players like older settings. They don't like all of them, and some of them might have to change a bit to appeal to them, but introducing the older settings to newer players is a good thing, even if minor or even occasional major parts of them have to change.

It's not easy to appease the modern/younger D&D community. Part of the attempt to appease to them has been updating popular older settings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When people make a big deal about mustaches and an optional rule that isn't even mechanically important in 5e being ignored, then that's certainly what it feels like to the people that would like the setting to improve.

I don't think it is. From my discussions with you, it seems pretty difficult to appease both of us, when what I want is Alignment to not be important and not built into any mechanics and what you want is for it to be built into mechanics and restricting player options. Those seem completely contradictory to me. There's not much to compromise when it's "it needs to have this" and "it shouldn't have this".

Yeah, the modern community isn't a hivemind. Just go to the younger communities online. Younger players have just as diverse of playstyles and gaming preferences as older players do. It's pretty hard to appease a giant group of diverse people with a new setting. That's why updating older settings, IMO, is overall a good idea. There's a lot of younger players that will enjoy core parts of older setting. They might not agree with all of it and might prefer some parts of it to change, but the younger community was disappointed with Spelljammer just like the older community because they wanted more. Tons of newer players love older settings. I have been playing the game for way less than you, but I love most of Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft. I liked Spelljammer so much that I homebrewed my own conversion of it for 5e before the new books came out, which was a ton of work and a nightmare to do.

Newer players like older settings. They don't like all of them, and some of them might have to change a bit to appeal to them, but introducing the older settings to newer players is a good thing, even if minor or even occasional major parts of them have to change.

It's not easy to appease the modern/younger D&D community. Part of the attempt to appease to them has been updating popular older settings.

Given 5e's unprecedented levels of success, and the vast majority of their player base being new to the game (both of which are facts NOT in dispute), I'd say that WotC has done pretty good job appealing to their "unpleasable" player base. Maybe now would be a good time to try something a little new and see what happens.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think it is. From my discussions with you, it seems pretty difficult to appease both of us, when what I want is Alignment to not be important and not built into any mechanics and what you want is for it to be built into mechanics and restricting player options. Those seem completely contradictory to me. There's not much to compromise when it's "it needs to have this" and "it shouldn't have this".

I said it before, I don't get everything I wanted... and I'm sorry @Scribe is not getting what he wants, but what he wants is what I don't want... so I can only be so sorry. I can't imagine a way we would all be happy