Dragonlance, do you like it?

[Ranger REG]

Sure, you could tell me this or that sourcebook is GREAT, but I wanted to just have a playable setting in one volume, and I don't have that with the DLCS.

Meh. It gave me enough. Then again, blame WotC since they're responsible for editing, layout, and publishing of the book. Sovereign Press just did the draft design. At least they're trying to support the DLCS.

P.S. I still want my Solamnic Knight and Taladas books.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's no more work than creating a character background for any character. I'm not talking about rewriting an entire race - just making the ones you meet memorable and not stereotypical. Come up with a theme and run with it. Really, all the work you're putting in is in character background.

No, you're not. You're talking about playing them against type. And while that's fine once in a while, I subscribe to the radical notion that a core element of a setting (like, say, a race) should be something that people want to use off the shelf, instead of having to redesign them as the inverse of how they were written.

Now, having said that, there are people who like all three of the comedy races, either individually or separately. But handwaving the race away, while it may fix the problem in some cases, does point to the fact that it really is one, for a lot of people.

Again, this goes back to the novel vs. RPG setting. What's cute in a novel (and Tasslehoff IS cute, as are the gully dwarves and tinker gnomes, in novels where they're, for the most part, unleashed on the readers in moderated doses) quickly becomes overkill for many people in RPGs.

Gamers may love to quote Monty Python at the gaming table, but many of them don't want it creeping into their games as part of the setting.

But, obviously, there are people who love the setting, kender and all. Different strokes for different folks. (I do think the kender should have been included in Races of the Wild, much like they were in the 2E Complete Halfling & Gnome book.)

 

[HellHound]

Whatever the case, it certainly isn't a valid excuse to knock the line or suggest you can't play it as it's not in a game-ready state. That's just loopy.

You will note that I did not knock the line, nor suggest it can't be played "as it's not in a game-ready state". I was just saying that product-count wise, there is more Eberron product than it seemed you were claiming in the post I was quoting.

Just because I was burned by DragonLance and won't return there doesn't mean I don't see the quality of product that has been released for it. Except for the critter layout, the Bestiary product is a BEAUTIFUL book full of great stuff - I'm very glad to have it. In fact, the 3.5 DL products have been pretty darn good so far, but discounting Monster Manual III out of hand and other Eberron support products is just slagging ANOTHER good product line that I don't particularly love either.

Honestly, I won't play Dragonlance because it brings back HORRID and AWFUL memories of the worst roleplaying experiences of my life; experiences that chased me away from D&D for 10 years. But I'm -also- a "third party publisher", and trying to turn the discussion into a Hasbro vs Third-Party debate won't ring well with me either.

 

[Cam Banks]

Honestly, I won't play Dragonlance because it brings back HORRID and AWFUL memories of the worst roleplaying experiences of my life; experiences that chased me away from D&D for 10 years.

Well, I'm glad you like the books, even if the setting is responsible for such deeply-rooted psychological scarring.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Eva of Sirrion]

No, you're not. You're talking about playing them against type.

*snip*

That's no longer the case in the current incarnation. There are now more somber and less-kleptomaniacal kender, and gnomes who talk slow and make stuff that work in the current edition.

I had my doubts about DL at first, with all the War of Souls craziness. But I picked it up and gave it an honest try, and it worked! I really think the current, post-WoS era is the best time for DL gaming, as all the story lines are resolved. The main are characters are either retired or long-since dead. It's your character's time to shine.

 

[Dragonhelm]

No, you're not. You're talking about playing them against type. And while that's fine once in a while, I subscribe to the radical notion that a core element of a setting (like, say, a race) should be something that people want to use off the shelf, instead of having to redesign them as the inverse of how they were written.

Personally, I don't think they need to be redesigned at all. There's more to all of these races than just humor value. I do know some ways to shape them for those who don't like them as they are. Then again, if you don't like them, it doesn't matter how much you shape them.

 

[warlord]

I'll keep it simple DL is what LoTR should have been.

 

[HellHound]

I'll keep it simple DL is what LoTR should have been.

Yep. LotR should have made me gag too, but failed. DL did it perfectly.

Well, that's my last post for the next week, ladies and gentlemen, I'm on my way to GenCon now, so you'll have to argue it out (gagging and psychological scarring and all) without me.

See y'all in 8 days or so!

 

[Cam Banks]

See y'all in 8 days or so!

While you're there, you could stop by the Sovereign Press booth and see us!

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Razuur]

But, if I have to take ownership of a setting-- if I have to cross lines through the setting and change things in order to make it my own-- then the setting is not what I wanted as-is. If I can change any campaign setting to be exactly the setting I want, then there is no difference between any two settings, or even between off-the-shelf settings and the myriad homebrews that other people are willing to share with others.

The standards by which I judge a campaign setting are based mainly on how it functions as-is-- how much I would enjoy playing or running a game in that setting if I were not capable of changing it. The less I need to change it, the easier (and more satisfying) it is for me to use it, and the more of the supplemental materials I will be able to use with it. I don't use anything without taking it apart, getting elbow-deep in its guts, and then putting it back together the way I think it ought to be.

It is an interesting perspective. I think we are on the same page in some ways, but not others. I agree that any setting should be inspirational and inspire you to new horizons. If it doesn't do that, then i agree 100% - it is not the setting for you. And Dragonlance may not be for you.

On the other hand, I have *never* played a setting as-is. Ever. Ever. No matter the setting, I always end up injection my own spins takes and variations, while keeping withing the spirit of the original setting.

Now even though Ansalon is in my world, believe it or not I have never GMed the setting. I have all of the books. I am inspired by the setting, and I know I will some day. Dragonlance just has a special place in my heart. Do I love all of it? No. But I will change what I don't like and inject my own.... like I do with every setting I have ever played.

I wasn't attacking you, Korimyr. Hope you didn't take it as such.

Razuur