Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8804756" data-attributes="member: 18182">The issue you describe is a disconnect between DM and players. The issue some are railing against here is . . . . not that. It's folks with a narrow view of setting purity.How you want to run your home Dragonlance campaign should be a discussion with your players, and everybody should be on the same page for maximized fun and minimized stress. If that means, "no orcs" at your table, good. If that means, "Orcs? Sure, why not?" that's good too.Even if WotC DOES decide to explicitly add orcs, drow, and all sorts of mayhem to Dragonlance (they've done it before, in 4E setting books), it's just such a nothing burger. I don't really expect them to do this, however, and nothing leaked so far is suggesting they will take this approach.The best path for WotC is a sidebar listing player options that traditionally haven't been a part of Dragonlance, with perhaps some context as to why. THEN explicitly state, "But, if your table wants to include orc PCs . . . GO FOR IT! Here's some ideas on how to incorporate new player options to Dragonlance".After the book comes out, I'm hoping for an invite to a Dragonlance game using the new material. I don't have much of a desire to play an orc, drow, tiefling, goliath, genasi, or other option traditionally not part of Dragonlance. But if the DM's pitch is exclusionary, as some here are advocating, I'll pass on that game. Life is too short for that.Although, now that I think about it . . . . I've starting to percolate some ideas on how to Dragonlancify drow . . . . perhaps a long lost offshoot of the elves who escaped to the underdark, worship the Dark Queen (Takhisis, not Lolth), the . . . Embranesti? Could be fun!</blockquote>

Verification