2010: Is it Dragonlance? (hint)

[cignus_pfaccari]

not really. Warlocks are 'dark' theamed, and Wizards can be fluffed to be neutral (red), and they can create a Arcane class that works for white...

Sorcerer?

Brad

 

[Dragonhelm]

not really. Warlocks are 'dark' theamed, and Wizards can be fluffed to be neutral (red), and they can create a Arcane class that works for white...
remember alingment is no longer needed in the mechanic...evil paladins, chaoictic monks...lawful bards... so unaligned white robes, and evil red robes, and good black robes

I see where you're coming from, but you're mixing classes with organizations. Wizards can be of any alignment. The robe color represents what that alignment is. Would we allow evil Harpers? Purple Knights of Cormyr who are evil?

Otherwise, there's no reason for the differentiation between the robes. They might as well all be wearing purple.

Remember, Dragonlance's core theme is the fight between good and evil and the Balance that must be maintained between the two. The gods are divided to represent this. This includes the moon gods, each one a patron of one of the Orders of High Sorcery.

I would speculate that the best way to do handle it would be like the spellscarred in Forgotten Realms. At 4th level, you can take a multiclass feat appropriate to an order. To advance in the order, you take further feats and then paragon tier gets you into High Wizard of <insert color>.

We've discussed that very idea on the Dragonlance boards. It would certainly work out thematically.

 

[I'm A Banana]

While I still think the setting could be Dark Sun (or even something more out of left field), I do think DL is a strong contender for potential setting.

But the races to have a bad rap.

I share this sentiment, but I would totally trust the 4e team to be able to keep those races fun and comical WITHOUT having them be pure comic relief. The reason is three-fold: Solid DM advice combined with "open to interpretation" mechanics and a desire to fix what is wrong.

There's no real reason that 4e's halflings and kender can't be each other. The kleptomaniac kender stereotype (like a lot of these comic relief stereotypes) is a player problem, not a race problem, and there's no reason that a 4e DL couldn't play up the "curious, bold, adventurous" angle and downplay the "no sense of personal property" angle (or even mostly remove it entirely: "Kender aren't idiots and they learn how to avoid annoying other adventuring companions quickly, or they die.") Combine this with solid DM advice for handling comedy and inter-party conflict in the game (which any DL DM's guide would be remiss in not including), and you have a recepie that fixes that kleptomania problem.

Tinker gnomes hurting themselves and gully dwarves being unlovable can be flavor without any mechanical support. "Oh, your Tinker Gnome artificer uses an invention that works well enough to activate the power and also leaves you covered in slime and oil" doesn't need any mechanical ramifications. Gully dwarves don't need negative ability score modifiers: if they're NPC's exclusively, it can mostly be dealt with in flavor text and art. If they can be PC's, well, same thing. PC's also have the "I'm a hero, I don't have to be lame" justification, and buttmonkey status can always be reinforced through the racial powers or somesuch.

The 4e team is very good at knocking things down and building them back up anew. The new form isn't always very pleasing to everyone, but DL would have the advantage that the "new form" has no reason to be different from the "old form," aside from getting rid of some of the more obnoxious player problems. Noble Draconians? Kender-halflings? All of this is cakewalk.

Blaming Kender for being a jerk is like blaming the Chaotic Neutral alignment for...well, being a jerk.

And we can stop barking up the "orders of magic = classes" tree. Why would they need to limit it based on class? Why not just keep it purely alignment based? Warlocks can be LG just as easily as paladins can in 4e. Any "arcane power source" could count for it. Why not have black robed enemies be able to call on the powers of a Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, and Swordmage?

 

[rowport]

The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.

Does that clear things up?

To me, the best news about Rouse being on this thread is knowing for sure he sees the vast majority of posters saying they prefer Dark Sun over Dragonlance for the next setting.

Disclaimer: I love Dark Sun, and loathe Dragonlance.

 

[rowport]

If I was to boil down the kender to a single word, that would be "curiosity." ...

I think that word would be "annoying."

 

[Remathilis]

The 2010 setting has an "a" in the name.

Does that clear things up?

Hmmmm...

Greyhawk
Mystara
Planescape
Dragonlance
Spelljammer
Dark Sun
Ravenloft
Birthright

I can officially say the new setting is NOT Birthright!

 

[doctorhook]

I hope none of my comments have been misconstrued as anti-4e or anti-WotC. If so, then I apologize if I have inadvertently given that impression.

Like you, I like 3.5e, but I like 4e even more. I am also a fan of WotC. Nothing against them. I've enjoyed the 4e products quite a bit.

That being said, I'm also one of the freelance writers for MWP who helped to shape and mold Dragonlance for 3.5, as well as the administrator for the Dragonlance Nexus fan website. I've been a Dragonlance fan since the early 90s. So the setting is very near and dear to my heart.

When I look at 4e for Dragonlance, I know that WotC would put out a good product. Yet I also have certain misgivings, based largely on the Realms reboot. I also have questions about certain items, like how to do gully dwarves when there are no negative ability score modifiers.

While WotC may do a good job, MWP would be better still (in my opinion). The reason I say this is because MWP and their freelances are vested in the setting. They know the setting inside out, and worked hard to integrate 3.5-isms into the setting. The MWP era of Dragonlance gaming is considered by many fans to be the "golden age of Dragonlance gaming."

So that's where I'm coming from on this.

My conversation with you has been nothing if not pleasant. Significantly, you're stating a good point without putting down WotC or 4E, and that makes all the difference. I'm happy to accept that MWP did/does a good job or even a great job; it's just the implication that WotC isn't capable of doing a good job that annoys me. You haven't made that implication.

Find the joy of the ignore feature. Really makes threads like these a lot better.

It's tempting! But I'm always afraid that I'll miss something hilariously, infuriatingly stupid. I want to believe you that it's better that way, but I need to be convinced.

To me, the best news about Rouse being on this thread is knowing for sure he sees the vast majority of posters saying they prefer Dark Sun over Dragonlance for the next setting.

Disclaimer: I love Dark Sun, and loathe Dragonlance.

Normally I'd be right on the same page as you here, but in the spirit of fairness to folks like Dragonhelm, I'm ready to accept that Dragonlance might actually be something cool that I just haven't seen from the best angle yet.

That said, I suspect it's too late in the game for WotC to change their mind about which setting to publish next. I imagine that by now, whatever it is is well into the design and development process. (Conceptualizing an entire setting to a new edition takes a fair bit of work, I believe, and companies don't succeed by starting their development late.)

 

[JVisgaitis]

It pains me to say this as I would much rather see Dark Sun, but with the anniversary for Dragonlance and all of the other bits that people mentioned in this thread, I'd be surprised if it wasn't Dragonlance.

 

[deadsmurf]

My thoughts are this - Dark Sun is almost definitely the setting for next year. But this year is Dragonlance's anniversary so they will do something special for it - a One-off setting book at "double" length (400ish pages) It will be like the Campaign Guides in previous editions, with both player and DM stuff it in.
This goes against the 'one setting per year' rule, but it's a special year!
Instead of a setting, they may just be re-doing the Chronicles era adventures as a huge hardback too.

 

[Cam Banks]

This thread exploded out of nowhere!

I have a hunch that draconians are going to be incorporated into core DL in some fashion, not as a precursor to a DL campaign product but because they're iconic in their own way and well, why not?

I believe Dragonlance would work just fine in 4E for the simple reason that it's not terribly far away from core D&D at this point, with only a handful of setting-specific issues that most people won't be overly concerned by and which a setting-specific product would handily deal with.

And while I would give my left gnomish apparatus to work on a 4E Dragonlance, I also think WotC has a fairly good grasp on its intellectual property's marketability and underlying aspects that anything they produce with Dragonlance content will be with an eye toward quality and progressive design.

Cheers,
Cam