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.

​

 

[Steel_Wind]

I am quite unable to recognize the validity of a disconnect where many posters here seem unable to change a published setting so that it fits their view of what they would prefer to run.

You can just change it, right? There's no debate, no lobbying, no hand wringing or pearl clutching involved. You are the DM. You just change it so it's what you prefer. POOF

How is this controversial?

It seems that there are WAY more posters on ENWorld more engaged and invested in complaining about what they don't like -- and not enough just shrugging and changing stuff so that they do like it.

I'm mystified about this, tbh. At this point? This is persuasive evidence that there are many here who don't really want to run it -- they just prefer to complain on ENWorld or Reddit or what have you. I can't take this sort of grumbling seriously.

 

[Scribe]

It seems that there are WAY more posters on ENWorld more engaged and invested in complaining about what they don't like -- and not enough just shrugging and changing stuff so that they do like it.

I'm not sure this is it. I mentioned this in respect to a few posters here, but I think we probably agree on more than we disagree, but the discussion between a few details, the debate and trying to at least understand the perspective of the other, is how/why forums provide value.

To me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am quite unable to recognize the validity of a disconnect where many posters here seem unable to change a published setting so that it fits their view of what they would prefer to run.

You can just change it, right? There's no debate, no lobbying, no hand wringing or pearl clutching involved. You are the DM. You just change it so it's what you prefer. POOF

How is this controversial?

It seems that there are WAY more posters on ENWorld more engaged and invested in complaining about what they don't like -- and not enough just shrugging and changing stuff so that they do like it.

I'm mystified about this, tbh. At this point? This is persuasive evidence that there are many here who don't really want to run it -- they just prefer to complain on ENWorld or Reddit or what have you. I can't take this sort of grumbling seriously.

Okay, hold on a second. I think something needs to be established before we go any further here.

This is criticism.

The fact that, in terms of the game aspects can be changed has no bearing on critique of the work as presented.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Okay, hold on a second. I think something needs to be established before we go any further here.

This is criticism.

The fact that, in terms of the game aspects can be changed has no bearing on critique of the work as presented.

And I think -- by page 59 of this thread -- something else needs to be established:

This stopped being "criticism" 35+ pages ago.

There is a difference between criticisim and endlessly complaining for the sake of doing so. You are discussing a newly published game world with a lengthy history in both novels and setting/modules that goes back 38 years.

It's like complaining about a 2x4 length of lumber for being 3 inches too long, no matter how you try to fit it into the frame!

Voo-bah, Voo-bah, Voo-bah...thud

Just make the adjustments and you are good to go. Except a thread discussing a game product isn't about the game product anymore or about using the game product -- it's about complaining about the premise of the game product, endlessly.

That's my take-away from all of this. And if you don't see that many others might see it the same way? You are too close.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Okay, hold on a second. I think something needs to be established before we go any further here.

This is criticism.

The fact that, in terms of the game aspects can be changed has no bearing on critique of the work as presented.

It's also the lore equivalent of the Oberoni Fallacy. "It doesn't matter if the lore is bad, because you can change it!"

No, it matters. Especially when the improvements are quite small and would greatly improve the quality of the setting.

 

[Scribe]

Especially when the improvements are quite small and would greatly improve the quality of the setting.

Especially when the changes you want are quite small, and would greatly improve the quality of the setting for you personally.

It needs to be understood, that there is no One True Way here.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Thats not Dragonlance.

That...is a different story.

But it's better. I don't really care if it's not Dragonlance to you. If "good gods drop mountains on innocent people and abandon the world in its time of need" is essential to the identity of Dragonlance, maybe it needs to stop being "Dragonlance" for this particular part of its lore.

If Paladine opposed the cataclysm, he would be allowing for the essential "1984"-ing of the population. Removal of Free Will, is the domain of Takhisis, head of the Gods of Evil.

Killing people is removing their free will. In fact, in the real world, it's the ultimate form of removing someone's free will. If he took a part in dropping a mountain on a city, then he already did a ton of "Free Will removal".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Especially when the changes you want are quite small, and would greatly improve the quality of the setting for you personally.

It needs to be understood, that there is no One True Way here.

No. It would make the story better. Not just something I would prefer. If I were altering Dragonlance to be something I'd prefer, my changes would be far more extensive. What I like and what I think is a better story are different things. Changing the Cataclysm makes it a better story. This isn't a "that's just your opinion, man" moment. This is an aspect of the setting that has problems and would benefit from being changed.

Dragonlance is flawed. Every D&D setting is. There are changes that would make it objectively better. The same applies to every setting.

 

[Scribe]

Killing people is removing their free will. In fact, in the real world, it's the ultimate form of removing someone's free will. If he took a part in dropping a mountain on a city, then he already did a ton of "Free Will removal".

Free will, within the context of DL, is freedom to choose. It is not freedom from consequence, it is not freedom from Old Testament style judgment.

Freedom to choose, is Good. Its probably one of the most basic 'Goods' in existence. Takhisis doesnt want choice, she wants obedience and worship. The Priesthood of Istar had resorted to Thought Police, this was discussed several pages/days ago. They had, by all accounts become Evil, but were also trying to WIPE OUT Evil.

They were warned. They lost their powers. They kept going. Messages went unheeded. The true faithful were brought up, and as discussed to the very end here, the 'flood event' happens.

This should all make sense to, not AGREEABLE, but at least be understood from a certain theological world view.

No. It would make the story better. Not just something I would prefer. If I were altering Dragonlance to be something I'd prefer, my changes would be far more extensive. What I like and what I think is a better story are different things. Changing the Cataclysm makes it a better story. This isn't a "that's just your opinion, man" moment. This is an aspect of the setting that has problems and would benefit from being changed.

Dragonlance is flawed. Every D&D setting is. There are changes that would make it objectively better. The same applies to every setting.

Nah, it literally is a "just your opinion, man" moment. There is no One True Way, and I hope Planescape makes it out of Wizard's offices before that changes.

 

[Velderan]

The official version sets the baseline - from that I can incorporate whatever I want to include as I see fit.

But if the baseline doesn't work for me, I have to change it to make it usable, and then also change anything extra I want to incorporate that was designed with the official version in mind so as to be compatible with my customized version. The more work needed to fix the baseline, the more work needed to fix everything else. If the custom "remix" I ultimately end up with dramatically changes the Mages of High Sorcery, then a big, fancy, third-party sourcebook on the Mages of High Sorcery doesn't do me much good, does it?

At a certain point, the effort necessary to salvage Dragonlance becomes more than the setting is worth to me, and it will simply be rendered down into scrap to be repurposed elsewhere. Which is a shame, because again, there's a lot I actually like about it.

All I want is for the baseline Dragonlance setting to be usable for me. I can take it from there. But if I have to rebuild the setting from scratch, then it's not worth the effort.

I apologize if you've stated it elsewhere, but what are the pros and cons of the setting for you?