D&D 5E Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

  • I hate or Dislike the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as type of Dragon

    Votes: 18 22.8%
  • I like or love the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as a type of Dragon

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • Neutral as a Gem Dragon

    Votes: 52 65.8%

see

Pedantic Grognard
They don't need to though - companies simply don't inherit that stuff. Look at the issue of Disney not paying royalties to writers (most notably Alan Dean Foster) who have written for franchises Disney later bought. I believe they eventually accepted a moral responsibility, but legally, Disney was right - the company that owes you money does not exist.
You can't buy an unconditional right to something from a party that doesn't have an unconditional right to it. Disney can argue the original publisher has to pay the royalties, but if the royalties aren't actually paid, the conditional publication rights Disney bought go away.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Ah. Less that there's too many dragons, and more that they are the Wrong Dragon? That I can understand.

When I next run a thing that needs dragons, I'm apt to specifically discard the idea that the various types of dragons are species that breed true.

In one of my old homebrew worlds, dragons were just dragons. Their "color" depended on how much of a substance (usually element or quasi-element, as we sometimes referred to things like 'wood' or 'lava') they ATE (being able to consume pretty much anything). Their breath weapon was, naturally, them spitting it back out, and if they had a metallic "sheen" it was only because they worshipped Smelt (pretty much Bahamut) as opposed to Spectrus (pretty much Tiamat). Worship of either of those Dragon Gods did not make one "good" or "evil" aligned - that was up to the individual dragon. (Both Gods believed that Dragons were superior to all other creatures. Generally Smelt felt that superiority meant that "lesser" creatures should be pitied/protected while Spectrus believed they should be disdained/exploited).
 


Scribe

Legend
Interesting, when did they do that?

Or are you referring to the official "only core is confirmed to be canon for 5E" policy?
Yep.

I realized it as I was looking through my copy of MToF for the Elves. A definitively stated 'word of god' origin story?

lol no we cant have that in 5th 'its whatever you want, only the core 3 books are canon' edition.
 

JEB

Legend
WotC acquired TSR and when you buy a company, you also buy its contractual obligations.
"Fun" historical fact: When TSR acquired wargame publisher SPI in 1983, they made a big point of acquiring the company's assets, but not its debts and liabilities, including an obligation to continue SPI subscriptions. (More info here.) Apparently that is a thing you can do... pretty unpleasant, though.
 

JEB

Legend
A template isn't redundant. A lore is the bed Rick the game is made from.
No, the rules are the bed Rick of the game. The lore is just window dressing.
You kind of need both.

Lore without rules is role-playing without the game part; inspiration for good storytelling, but without any mechanical way to use it.

Rules without lore is a game without the role-playing part; mechanics alone don't tell you how (for example) a monster or NPC might behave outside of a fight.

I'm pretty sure this is why books that are mostly or entirely rules, or books that are mostly or entirely lore, are not common sights in D&D's product history.
 



delericho

Legend
Like what?
I'm not sure. Maybe "Jander Sunstar" will turn out to be an alias used by a family of disguised Song Dragons. Or the quest-givers in recent adventures will be Steel Dragons. Or maybe they'll do a path where an assassin is targeting elder dragons, and it turns out that both the assassin and the PCs' primary ally are disguised dragons. Or... well, anything really. :)
 


Remove ads

Top