Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Legend
It's 2022, and we continually hear how the D&D market skews young these days. I suspect WotC will be aware that the potential market for 5e Dragonlance is structured something like:

People who've never read any of the novels > people who read the first and maybe second trilogies over twenty years ago > people who've read more and/or more recently than that.

And in that case, they won't give a tiny little damn about who the True Fans of Dragonlance are. 5e Dragonlance will be made primarily for the first bracket, with occasional easter eggs to keep the second and third brackets feeling seen, if not actually happy.
WotC's post Tasha's D&D plan in a nutshell. The main reason I've moved on from them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's 2022, and we continually hear how the D&D market skews young these days. I suspect WotC will be aware that the potential market for 5e Dragonlance is structured something like:

People who've never read any of the novels > people who read the first and maybe second trilogies over twenty years ago > people who've read more and/or more recently than that.

And in that case, they won't give a tiny little damn about who the True Fans of Dragonlance are. 5e Dragonlance will be made primarily for the first bracket, with occasional easter eggs to keep the second and third brackets feeling seen, if not actually happy.
a) true fans is a non-real concept it has no essence it is arbitrary.

b) you are likely right in the primary audience.

c) people will pointlessly panic over it for no good reason.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
You've dodging the main issue, which is the assumption that if someone disagrees with you about a subjective assessment of DL, it means they must not be as well-read as you are. It doesn't really matter how many books are required to be "well informed" because you have no idea how many books other people have read. Leaping to the assumption that they haven't read enough, because you don't think their assessment is correct, is the part that's gatekeeping.

You're not the only one who's done it in this thread, BTW.


Again with the assumptions. When did I ever say I dislike DragonLance? I love DragonLance, plus I have no intention of playing 5E DragonLance or even reading it since I don't play 5E.

And you're gatekeeping again here, by describing the target audience in terms that make it clear you consider them "casual fans" rather than "true fans."
I guess I don’t see why being a casual fan is bad. I’m a casual fan of a lot of things

Just means I’m not as invested.

As for the “you” stuff that was meant more of an in general. I should have clarified.
 





DarkCrisis

Legend
That's still forming an opinion, not making up one.
I don’t really see the difference but I guess if you want to nitpick words.

They FORMED an opinion based on zero real info aside from someone else’s FORMED opinion they posted on a forum.

Happy now?
 
Last edited:

glass

(he, him)
First up, my Dragonlance credentials, since that seems to be important to people:
I have read the Chronicles and Legends trilogies multiple times, and have read many of the other novels, culminating with the Dragons of a Fallen Sun - not sure why I never finished that trilogy. I did not read every single novel in between, but I read a lot.

Aside from the novels, I could have sworn I owned a copy original Dragonlance Adventures, but it is not on the shelf - either way I have definitely read it. And I do own the 3rd edition version of the campaign setting.

TBF, I have not played, run, or even read any of the original modules. And none of the above reading (with the possible exception of the 3e CS) are particularly recent.
Anyway, I enjoyed it all at the time. I never thought that the "balance of good and evil" made much sense, but I thought there must be something I was missing - after all its was official stuff and I was a teenager. As I got older, I realised that there was wasn't really anything more there, and "balance of good and evil" made even less sense than I first thought (plus I became aware of the other problematic stuff that flew over my head back in the day, like all the ableism).

But in spite of all that, there is some really cool stuff in there (knights jousting on dragon back :cool:), and none of it is really that dependent on the problematic stuff IMNSHO.

All of which makes me rather ambivalent on the subject.

On the one hand, anyone who has been paying attention to my recent posting history will no doubt be aware that I have strong feeling about what WotC should do when resurrecting old setting (not that I necessarily expect anyone else to agree): I think if they are going to use an old setting name, then they should only deviate from the original version for a very good reasons. OTOH, I consider removing the racism, ableism, and other problematic stuff to be a pretty damn good reason (and I do include "the genocidal Kingpriest was a good man, honest" amongst the problematic stuff).

On the third hand, expecting current WotC to fix the problematic stuff may be a tad optimistic (see the recent hadozee controversy). I guess we will just have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:


DarkCrisis

Legend
Yes, I am happy that people are no longer being accused of fabricating their opinions.
Fabricate

"To construct or manufacture (something, especially an industrial product), especially from prepared components."

Though I'm guessing you mean:

"To invent or concoct (something), typically with deceitful intent."

Interesting how certain words can have a duel meaning.

Not to nitpick or anything....
 



I guess I don’t see why being a casual fan is bad.
It's obviously not. But your post implied that it's regrettable for a work to be targeted at casual fans. If you did not intend to deride casual fans in your post, you did not do a good job of communicating that.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
On the third hand, expecting current WotC to fix the problematic stuff may be a tad optimistic (see the recent hadozee controversy). I guess we will just have to wait and see.
The hadozee thing, however, is an honest mistake caused by a combination of three factors: the "minstrel" artwork, the "bred slaves" backstory, and the fact that they're monkey-people. If there had only been two of those factors--if they had been evolved naturally or been created by their own gods or were the result of a magical mishap, or if they were anthro otters, or the artwork showed them as knights in shining armor--then there almost certainly wouldn't have been a problem at all. It's only because of all three things together that they were problematic.

I don't believe that WotC would knowingly and willfully put problematic stuff (or at least, stuff that they know to be problematic) in a Dragonlance book, and I think if people continue to talk about the other bad stuff in old Dragonlance that it would make it harder for them to not know that something is problematic.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Just seems really weird to me people fighting over a property they don’t care for or never touched or barely touched the fiction. Do you just need a win? Told your opinion based on minimal lore is just as weighted as those who know more about it?

Mod Note:
It is time for you to back off a couple of steps there. For one thing, you're making this personal. For another, the gatekeeping is pretty thick.
 


Azzy

KMF DM
I said AD&D last I looked 2E was AD&D.
So? Dragonlance Adventures and the Dragonlance modules are all 1e products. Bringing up 2e and avatars is irrelevant to the rules for Krynnish gods as they were originally presented and conceived.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
So? Dragonlance Adventures and the Dragonlance modules are all 1e products. Bringing up 2e and avatars is irrelevant to the rules for Krynnish gods as they were originally presented and conceived.

Well Fizban is essentially an avatar by any other name.

Main point was the gods don't go head to head directly they use mortal proxies.
 

Hussar

Legend
The context here is a difference of opinion about the "thematic core" of DL, which is a subjective assessment. You cannot be "flat-out wrong" about a subjective assessment. So this is a red herring.
But ignoring two out of three things in order to talk about the third is better?

The point being, it's not totally unreasonable to expect a basic level of knowledge about something before pontificating strong opinions about it. Or, at least it's not unreasonable to expect people to keep an open mind if they don't have a basic level of knowledge on a subject.

As far as "I should only need to read the rule books" goes, @Faolyn, that's not really going to wash in Dragonlance (although it does in other settings) because, unlike other settings, Dragonlance didn't start as a boxed set. The setting guide came out years after the modules and the formative novels of the setting. And then we got three or four massive rewrites to the setting after that. Which of course does make conversation really tricky.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top