D&D General Did Dragonlance/Krynn exist in 4e canon?

[Paul Farquhar]

And they really did major revisions in Quests (Barrier Peaks, in particular, is essentially a different module with some recycled Encoutners

They were all excellent to start off with though. The revisions were largely to reflect faster modern pacing.

Most of the DL modules are horrible uninspired railroads, full of “this character cannot die” type stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

They were all excellent to start off with though. The revisions were largely to reflect faster modern pacing.

Most of the DL modules are horrible uninspired railroads, full of “this character cannot die” type stuff.

I have heard a lot of conflicting reports about DL in actual play: about people using their own original PCs and not running then as railroad-y as written.

Again, I'm not saying this because I want it (though I would pribsvly pick it up) I just think it is highly likely given enough time.

 

[mamba]

I have heard a lot of conflicting reports about DL in actual play: about people using their own original PCs and not running then as railroad-y as written.

1e was pretty railroady in places, 3e loosened that somewhat. As to ‘this character cannot die because they show up again later’ except for one NPC (rather than enemy) that is really more up to the DM… you can kill a Dragon Highlord and next time encounter their replacement, it’s an army after all, it does not need to be the same guy

 

[Werthead]

the novels are owned by WotC, they were hired writers

Weis & Hickman are still paid a licence for every copy sold of even the OG 1984-86 trilogy, it's just pretty risible compared to the normal market rate.

For all new copies sold of their later DL books (Summer Flame onwards) they get much more the normal market rate, it's how TSR got them to come back and how WotC kept them for so long.

The current novel trilogy is something of a reset of the Dragonlance timeline, and requires no extensive knowledge of the intervening material (War of Souls etc), people can mostly just read them without being experts in the lore.

 

[mamba]

The current novel trilogy is something of a reset of the Dragonlance timeline, and requires no extensive knowledge of the intervening material (War of Souls etc), people can mostly just read them without being experts in the lore.

agreed, but it still would not be the natural starting point for anyone starting with DL books, Chronicles will always be that, with Legends the logical follow up. After that, maybe the new trilogy, maybe Lost Chronicles, maybe the transition into the 5th age and on from there, all valid options

 

[pemerton]

1e simply forgot to mention that they do not exist and they got accidentally included in some adventure or book… Hickman was very clear from the start that they do not exist and that they had draconians in their stead, so not a retcon but an omission (in DLA) and a mistake (wherever they were used).

There's no omission in DragonLance Adventures. It has a Unified Ansalon Monster Chart, and Orcs aren't on that chart. Nor are Kobolds, Bugbears or Gnolls. Goblins and Hobgoblins are. And of course Ogres and Minotaurs.

 

[mamba]

There's no omission in DragonLance Adventures. It has a Unified Ansalon Monster Chart, and Orcs aren't on that chart. Nor are Kobolds, Bugbears or Gnolls. Goblins and Hobgoblins are. And of course Ogres and Minotaurs.

the omission is to not explicitly say that they do not exist in the setting, which TotL supposedly does. At least that was the argument for the ‘2e removed orcs, and it is a retcon’ side from that discussion some time again ago

To me, if DLA had explicitly included them, that would have been a mistake (or retcon by 2e if you are uncharitable and ignore what Hickman has said in interviews)

 

[pemerton]

the omission is to not explicitly say that they do not exist in the setting, which TotL supposedly does. If DLA had explicitly included them, that would have been a mistake (or retcon by 2e)

I'm not sure why a book about a setting would tell us what's absent from the setting (like, it doesn't tell us that there are no Hobbits, nor the goddess Athena, either - but we can infer that from the fact that they're not mentioned as elements of the setting).

 

[wedgeski]

I have heard a lot of conflicting reports about DL in actual play: about people using their own original PCs and not running then as railroad-y as written.

As my group did. The DL series demands a lot of its DM, but it certainly delivers. We still talk about that campaign, over thirty years after we started it.

 

[dave2008]

As my group did. The DL series demands a lot of its DM, but it certainly delivers. We still talk about that campaign, over thirty years after we started it.

I think so. I did purchase some of these back in the day, but as a newbie DM could never understand how to really run them.