Dragonlance Dragonlance Creators Reveal Why There Are No Orcs On Krynn

Talking to the Dragonlance Nexus, Dragonlance creators Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman revealed why the world of Krynn features no orcs -- in short, because they didn't want to copy Tolkien, and orcs were very much a 'Middle Earth' thing.

Weis told Trampas Whiteman that "Orcs were also viewed as very Middle Earth. We wanted something different." Hickman added that it was draconians which made Krynn stand out. Read more at the link below!

Why are there no Orcs in Krynn? Weis and Hickman give us the answer! - Dragonlance Nexus

Dragonhelm gets the scoop from Weis and Hickman on why there are no orcs in Krynn. Read More

dragonlancenexus.com

 

[Xamnam]

what they are asking is to understand there subjective feeling of the world AND to push that any and all future reimaginings of the world fit into there and only there subjective feeling without taking anyone elses feelings into it.

if it was just "I don't like that" and "I do like that" this would not be 34 pages long.

The problem is that the opposing argument can be credibly described by this without changing a word.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Other than dooming the quest to fail and the world to unending darkness anyway. But that's not much of a change. We really didn't NEED the hobbits' resistance to the ring's corruption.

is it a hobbit trait or the protagonist with a 'never left home and don't crave power' trait?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have done that before. I mean I talk about that campaign like all the time on here. I just don't do it for every setting, and when I do it I can answer why I am doing so without it being 10+ years out of date.

"Out-of-date" for reasons not having to do with inclusivity is not a thing in gaming to me. Everybody likes different stuff.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem is that the opposing argument an be credibly described by this without changing a word.

correct... this isn't "I have this subjective opinion" argument
both me and max and micha and everyone else not ONLY have our own subjective opinion but are hoping and pushing for WotC to follow our lead not the other side.
None of us think "Oh it's just a thing" we all think "this is the best way going forward"
so neither side can hide behind "Just my subjective opinion"

 

[Xamnam]

correct... this isn't "I have this subjective opinion" argument
both me and max and micha and everyone else not ONLY have our own subjective opinion but are hoping and pushing for WotC to follow our lead not the other side.
None of us think "Oh it's just a thing" we all think "this is the best way going forward"

Right, right, right.

so neither side can hide behind "Just my subjective opinion"

That's what I don't get. It's fundamentally a subjective opinion argument, so if we discount that, there's little of substance left.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"Out-of-date" for reasons not having to do with inclusivity is not a thing in gaming to me. Everybody likes different stuff.

okay, it does to me.

If I sat down to watch the new Quantum Leap and it did a 1 for 1 of the series premier of the original Quantum Leap I would hate the protagonist. When I started my rewatch of the 80's version I was showing it to my fiancé who is many years younger then me and she was put off by several things that Sam (the protagonist) just did. I have seen her enjoy the newer one much more (except this week cause she hates the exorcist and this episode is based on that story).

Out of date isn't just inclusivity.

 

[billd91]

That's what I don't get. It's fundamentally a subjective opinion argument, so if we discount that, there's little of substance left.

It's always about more than just preferences. There's always that hint (more than in some cases) that someone else's preferences or philosophies of gaming are wrong, badwrongfun, unfair, silly, etc. that keeps the argument going and going. And this thread is not at all different in that regard.

 

[Xamnam]

It's always about more than just preferences. There's always that hint (more than in some cases) that someone else's preferences or philosophies of gaming are wrong, badwrongfun, unfair, silly, etc. that keeps the argument going and going. And this thread is not at all different in that regard.

Oh, absolutely, that's why I said

Granted, it'd probably be less long and contentious, as the argument about racial restrictions neatly slots into classic "Whose desires matter more at the table?" That's what seems to be the real point of contention

But, if we're going to be actively discussing the subjective side of it, which people have been, then I just think we should accept people's posts about their own feelings at face value.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's always about more than just preferences. There's always that hint (more than in some cases) that someone else's preferences or philosophies of gaming are wrong, badwrongfun, unfair, silly, etc. that keeps the argument going and going. And this thread is not at all different in that regard.

100% agree.

 

[mamba]

When you say things like "hard to fathom, I know," you are, in fact, making fun of someone.

agreed, at that point I did, a little, an amount I expect anyone being able to handle

You are mocking their intelligence, portraying them as incapable of understanding simple things. That is why I was, and am, upset. Obviously, that specific comment only came later; it is simply illustrative of the pattern that was already there.

I dispute that there already was a pattern in my original reply. I even put a smiley to indicate that it was tongue in cheek

Because I already tried, and you responded with flippancy, something you continue to do; I won't be responding further unless we can get past snide, insulting comments like the following:

works for me, this was not going anywhere anyway