Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hussar

Legend
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.
Then why on earth would WotC listen to you or even consider your opinions about 5e Dragonlance?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
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.
Not really though. In the novels, Fizban doesn't really directly do anything (although, he does save Tasslehoff that one time - so, a little cheating). It's not like he's the shining dragon raining fire down on bad guys. Appearing as a doddering old wizard and not telling anyone who he is isn't really what most people think of as an avatar appearing to the believers.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
And thus it fails as a game setting. If you can't play "properly" in a setting unless you're intimately aware of the contents of as many as 200 novels, then it probably shouldn't be a game.

Back in college, I played in a short-lived GURPS Discworld game (short lived because of interpersonal drama, IIRC; it was college). Some of the players had never read a Discworld novel. I may have been the only one other than the GM who had read them all; heck, I don't even know if the GM had read them all. They were able to understand the setting enough through the game book and the GM's description that they were able to play it just fine.

I managed to play in a X-Man style Marvel Supers game (also using GURPS; different GM) despite having never read an X-Man comic, having seen only one X-Man movie at that point, and having only passing familiarity with the Marvel universe as a whole (I prefer the DCU). Again, the game went just fine. Well, at least until one of the other players did something that caused us to have to circumvent a huge swathe of plot. The same GM also ran a Bunnies & Burrows game despite never having read or watched Watership Down--all he knew was the game book. And also back in college, he played in someone else's X-Files universe game, even though he hadn't mainlined every episode of that show and spin-offs the way the GM had.

So what is so special about Dragonlance that it requires one to read all the books that other settings don't have?
 

Hussar

Legend
So what is so special about Dragonlance that it requires one to read all the books that other settings don't have?
There really is a VERY large excluded middle here.

If you're going to discuss the design (not play) of a setting, requiring a basic knowledge of hte primary sources of that setting isn't a huge request. No one is claiming you need to read all of it. That would be ridiculous. But, at the very least, having read the original modules, and probably the first two trilogies, before discussing that details that are detailed IN THOSE WORKS, is a fairly reasonable request IMO.

But, I get the sense we're talking about two different things. You're talking about playing in a setting. I'm talking about designing the setting. Those are very much not the same thing for the reasons you outline. As a player in a setting, you aren't really required to know anything and, frankly, I'd say that most players often don't. Most players could not care less about the Kingpriest. It's setting wank and players couldn't care less.

Which is why I've been pretty clearly open in the past few pages to rewriting that.

But when people are claiming that it's stupid to have draconians instead of just raising dragons, as an example from this thread, then it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Draconians were very nearly just as big as most dragons. And you get dozens from each egg that are ready to go in a few years instead of getting one that won't be ready to fight for the better part of a century.

It's claims that the gods sent exactly one warning (Soth) to the Kingpriest and did nothing else. It's flat out untrue. It's wrong and it shows a lack of knowledge about the source material.

So, again, expecting a basic knowledge of the setting when discussing DESIGNING the setting, shouldn't be considered gate keeping or anything like that. Not actually knowing what the setting says isn't a qualification for having an opinion about the setting.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
There really is a VERY large excluded middle here.

If you're going to discuss the design (not play) of a setting, requiring a basic knowledge of hte primary sources of that setting isn't a huge request. No one is claiming you need to read all of it. That would be ridiculous. But, at the very least, having read the original modules, and probably the first two trilogies, before discussing that details that are detailed IN THOSE WORKS, is a fairly reasonable request IMO.

But, I get the sense we're talking about two different things. You're talking about playing in a setting. I'm talking about designing the setting. Those are very much not the same thing for the reasons you outline. As a player in a setting, you aren't really required to know anything and, frankly, I'd say that most players often don't. Most players could not care less about the Kingpriest. It's setting wank and players couldn't care less.

Which is why I've been pretty clearly open in the past few pages to rewriting that.

But when people are claiming that it's stupid to have draconians instead of just raising dragons, as an example from this thread, then it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Draconians were very nearly just as big as most dragons. And you get dozens from each egg that are ready to go in a few years instead of getting one that won't be ready to fight for the better part of a century.

It's claims that the gods sent exactly one warning (Soth) to the Kingpriest and did nothing else. It's flat out untrue. It's wrong and it shows a lack of knowledge about the source material.

So, again, expecting a basic knowledge of the setting when discussing DESIGNING the setting, shouldn't be considered gate keeping or anything like that. Not actually knowing what the setting says isn't a qualification for having an opinion about the setting.
Those things are quite different from what you think. Thinking "why not raise dragons instead of draconians" doesn't misunderstand the setting; it misunderstands game mechanics such as how long it takes for a dragon to reach maturity, since 5e dragon age categories don't include age ranges like they did in AD&D. It does not misunderstand the setting, though.

Also, the AD&D1e Dragonlance Adventures book, the 2e Dragonlance MC, and the 3e Bestiary of Krynn all say that draconians are Medium. So are Dragonlance dragons merely Large (in 5e terms), or were you misunderstanding what their size meant because 1e only had Small, Medium, and Large sizes? Also, neither of the AD&D references say that dozens of draconians arise from one egg.

As for the Cataclysm, the gods effectively sent no warnings--they sent 13 signs that were easily misinterpreted as being from evil gods (would you think a Good god would use devastating storms and trees weeping blood as a sign?), and they sent a guy who failed at his job. If they had truly wanted to warn the kingpriest, they would have used those dozens on spellcasting class levels to send an actual message that used words.

And this is not a question of knowing the source material. Would reading the novels make genocide more good? I say no.
 
Last edited:


Hussar

Legend
Those things are quite different from what you think. Thinking "why not raise dragons instead of draconians" doesn't misunderstand the setting; it misunderstands game mechanics such as how long it takes for a dragon to reach maturity, since 5e dragon age categories don't include age ranges like they did in AD&D. It does not misunderstand the setting, though.

Also, the AD&D1e Dragonlance Adventures book, the 2e Dragonlance MC, and the 3e Bestiary of Krynn all say that draconians are Medium. So are Dragonlance dragons merely Large (in 5e terms), or were you misunderstanding what their size meant because 1e only had Small, Medium, and Large sizes? Also, neither of the AD&D references say that dozens of draconians arise from one egg.

As for the Cataclysm, the gods effectively sent no warnings--they sent 13 signs that were easily misinterpreted as being from evil gods (would you think a Good god would use devastating storms and trees weeping blood as a sign?), and they sent a guy who failed at his job. If they had truly wanted to warn the kingpriest, they would have used those dozens on spellcasting class levels to send an actual message that used words.

And this is not a question of knowing the source material. Would reading the novels make genocide more good? I say no.

Sorry, I was unclear.

Draconians have the same hit dice and hit points as most dragons. That's why I said just as big.

And, one more time with feeling I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. I AGREE. LETS CHANGE HOW THE CATACLYSM IS PRESENTED. I've said this three times now.
 

GreyLord

Legend
So more people like glowing robot spines and bad plot twists.

I feel like we knew this.

We also knew that popularity isn't the same as quality any more than newness or oldness is.

Actually if we go by popularity it's a lot closer on RT. 88% vs. 94%. Audience score is a LOT higher than critics score...

I find that a lot.

Normally I trust audience scores more than critic scores, not because audiences are always right, but because what the general public enjoys seems to align more with what I might enjoy rather than what critics SAY WE SHOULD enjoy.

However, sometimes it isn't which is better or not better, sometimes BOTH can be good and BOTH can be enjoyed by many people and audiences.

Critics have created a general opinion of themselves that they are terrible in their taste in film and other arts in general. However, if you want a general overview of something, they are good. But, most critics are so out of touch of what the public would like, take their actual ratings or thumbs up or thumbs down with a grain of salt or a heavy dose of skepticism.

Afterall, 50 years ago critics and college professors considered The Lord of the Rings as junk trash novels not worth the literary consideration of even a dime novel. Today, oooooh how things have changed.

Of course, then you have bread and circuses for the public, while Caesar hosts his imperial guard. Those who want to be Caesar heed Caesar, but the public knows what it wants....and that's to be entertained!
 

DragonBelow

Adventurer
Also, the AD&D1e Dragonlance Adventures book, the 2e Dragonlance MC, and the 3e Bestiary of Krynn all say that draconians are Medium. So are Dragonlance dragons merely Large (in 5e terms), or were you misunderstanding what their size meant because 1e only had Small, Medium, and Large sizes? Also, neither of the AD&D references say that dozens of draconians arise from one egg.

From the Dragonlance Adventures:
The corruption of the eggs is the work of an evil triad, Wyrllish the cleric, Dracart the mage, and the ancient red dragon Harkiel, the Bender. Through arcane spells they cause the eggs to grow and their occupants to multiply.

Also most draconians are medium, but the Sivak have always been large. Also, It doesn't say dozens, but more than one. I remember reading a product that included the "secrets" of draconian creation., unfortunately I don't remember which one :(. The 3.5 books are highly regarded, not only were they produced by Margaret Weis companies, but some of the contributing authors were active members of the DL fan community.

As for the Cataclysm, the gods effectively sent no warnings--they sent 13 signs that were easily misinterpreted as being from evil gods (would you think a Good god would use devastating storms and trees weeping blood as a sign?), and they sent a guy who failed at his job. If they had truly wanted to warn the kingpriest, they would have used those dozens on spellcasting class levels to send an actual message that used words.

The kingpriest was not a good person, even though he started as one. At the height of his power he believed himself as virtuous and powerful as a god, and he had instituted something akin to the thought police.

From a story standpoint The Cataclysm serves to mark the "departure" of the gods, which is necessary so they can "come back" during the the War of the Lance, and bring hope to the war torn lands, and from that point of view I am able to accept it. Could it have been done differently? yeah, but I'm not going to fault the authors for that or ask them to change it.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Why on Earth would you imply that the only reason one would want to discuss DragonLance is if one believes that WotC would listen? I'm discussing it because we're on a discussion forum. This smacks of yet more gatekeeping.

I dunno.

A thread that is specifically talking about the new fifth edition version of Dragonlance? About how things are being changed in the new release?

I guess having a topic is now gatekeeping. :erm:

It is not gatekeeping to expect people who are weighing forth with an opinion to have at least a basic understanding of the topic.

If you have an opinion then you should be able to back that up with pesky things like facts. I guess expecting facts is now gatekeeping too. Why bother with facts? All we need is an opinion and an explanation that everyone should listen and respect that opinion.

:erm:
 

I do not mind the sexism and racism from the old DL setting mostly because I think from conflict great stories can arise. Most of the greatest stories are about those conflicts - just look at Willow, LotR The PCs are the exceptions who supposed to bring about change, just as the Heroes of the Lance did.
Actually, the solutions suggested do work.

The Kingpriest himself causes the Cataclysm - the ritual he tries to make himself a god fails and BOOOM. Istar is a crater. Moral of the story - don't try this at home kids.

You still get a Cataclysm, the whole Old Testament links are erased and the setting largely continues as is. There is nothing inherent in the gods smiting the Kingpriest that makes it necessary for the setting. Frankly, that's probably the least interesting (if the most contentious) element of the setup. You need the Cataclysm or the whole setting falls apart, but, the exact reason for it isn't all that important.

In fact, this way, very little needs to change. The Gods still warn the Kingpriest not to do it - but, are not allowed to directly intervene because the Balance must be maintained - if Paladine directly steps in, then Takhisis and everyone else can do the same and it's a much larger conflict with the gods taking a direct hand in things. Soth still fails and that whole story line is maintained. And the setting functions largely as it was.

Something to remember is that this is very much NOT Forgotten Realms. The gods in this setting do NOT directly appear. Even during the War of the Lance, Takhisis never actually arrives in Krynn (at least, not until possibly the very, very end). The gods never take the field and they do not have avatars, AFAIR. Fizban pops up, sure, but, again, takes no actual direct role. Only advises. ((Well, the line on that one might be a bit blurry, but, you get my meaning I hope))

I actually pretty much approve of this approach. It's a fairly minor change to the canon of the setting that smooths things over nicely and, honestly, probably makes more sense.
This would be a great change. You could still have a large percentage of the populace believing the gods created the Cataclysm and not the Kingpriest, hence the original books. For someone who leans more to the original setting with its medieval perspective this is a welcome change.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I do not mind the sexism and racism from the old DL setting mostly because I think from conflict great stories can arise. Most of the greatest stories are about those conflicts - just look at Willow, LotR The PCs are the exceptions who supposed to bring about change, just as the Heroes of the Lance did.

This would be a great change. You could still have a large percentage of the populace believing the gods created the Cataclysm and not the Kingpriest, hence the original books. For someone who leans more to the original setting with its medieval perspective this is welcome change.
The only problem I see with this approach is it doesn't really explain why the gods go away after the Cataclysm. After all, if the Kingpriest does it, then don't all the arguements about "the gods are all evil" equally apply to the gods for not helping Ansalon after the Kingpriest blows up a large chunk of it?

But, even if we ignore that, it still doesn't explain why the gods go away. Maybe they want to remove the temptation to become gods from people? I dunno.
 

The only problem I see with this approach is it doesn't really explain why the gods go away after the Cataclysm. After all, if the Kingpriest does it, then don't all the arguements about "the gods are all evil" equally apply to the gods for not helping Ansalon after the Kingpriest blows up a large chunk of it?
Makes it a bit more tragic. The gods tried to stop the Cataclysm, they couldn't, they failed. And all the thanks they got from even trying were the people, probably not understanding (and def noticing all the clerics got whisked away, maybe they were the only ones the gods could save). So they turned on them. Denied the gods worship, denied them power

With things being that hostile and the gods actively being fought against, may have seemed like backing off and just, leaving until called on again may have been the right idea
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I dunno.

A thread that is specifically talking about the new fifth edition version of Dragonlance? About how things are being changed in the new release?

I guess having a topic is now gatekeeping. :erm:

It is not gatekeeping to expect people who are weighing forth with an opinion to have at least a basic understanding of the topic.

If you have an opinion then you should be able to back that up with pesky things like facts. I guess expecting facts is now gatekeeping too. Why bother with facts? All we need is an opinion and an explanation that everyone should listen and respect that opinion.

:erm:
Again, can we get a list of the required reading for this course?

Because the first trilogy isn't enough and the Twins trilogy isn't enough. And there's actual hundreds of sources, so which books do we need to read to earn the right to not be repeatedly insulted?
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Again, can we get a list of the required reading for this course?

Because the first trilogy isn't enough and the Twins trilogy isn't enough. And there's actual hundreds of sources, so which books do we need to read to earn the right to not be repeatedly insulted?
Dude, take the win. I've already agreed to what you want. You want this changed, so, let's change it.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
Sorry, I was unclear.

Draconians have the same hit dice and hit points as most dragons. That's why I said just as big.
Actually, that's also incorrect. They had 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 hit dice back in 1e (with sivaks and aureks having the 6 and 8 HD), putting them behind the dragons, with only aureks really being close to gold dragons in terms of hp. Admittedly, they had many powers which put them ahead of 1e dragons. But dragons got a serious boost in 2e and draconians stayed the same. A 1e gold dragon had 10-12 HD and a set number of hp per die, depending on age. A 2e gold dragon had between 10 and 24 HD, a bunch of innate spells on top of the magic they could learn as they age, and a breath weapon that didn't get weaker as the dragon lost hp.

And, one more time with feeling I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. I AGREE. LETS CHANGE HOW THE CATACLYSM IS PRESENTED. I've said this three times now.
But we weren't really talking about that. We were talking mostly about the gatekeeping, and how one shouldn't have to have read all, most, or even some of the novels to be able to comment on or play the game. That's why I said "And this is not a question of knowing the source material. Would reading the novels make genocide more good? I say no."
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I dunno.

A thread that is specifically talking about the new fifth edition version of Dragonlance? About how things are being changed in the new release?

I guess having a topic is now gatekeeping. :erm:

It is not gatekeeping to expect people who are weighing forth with an opinion to have at least a basic understanding of the topic.

If you have an opinion then you should be able to back that up with pesky things like facts. I guess expecting facts is now gatekeeping too. Why bother with facts? All we need is an opinion and an explanation that everyone should listen and respect that opinion.

:erm:
@Fifth Element wasn't suggesting that having a topic or expecting facts are gatekeeping. What they were saying is that they are having a discussion on a forum about their opinions, not expecting that WotC is listening and taking notes and rewriting the books to fit their personal desires.

And no, personal, subjective opinions don't need facts. Trying to claim something is objectively true requires facts. It's an objectively true fact that the Krynnish Gods of Good threw a mountain and deliberately committed genocide because of the actions of one man and his minions (just so, as @DragonBelow said, they'd have a reason to come back and bring hope). It is my opinion that this means that those gods are, in fact, terrible beings who should not be considered good.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
The only problem I see with this approach is it doesn't really explain why the gods go away after the Cataclysm. After all, if the Kingpriest does it, then don't all the arguements about "the gods are all evil" equally apply to the gods for not helping Ansalon after the Kingpriest blows up a large chunk of it?

But, even if we ignore that, it still doesn't explain why the gods go away. Maybe they want to remove the temptation to become gods from people? I dunno.
Or maybe the kingpriest's mistake temporarily banished or weakened them.
 

DragonBelow

Adventurer
(just so, as @DragonBelow said, they'd have a reason to come back and bring hope). It is my opinion that this means that those gods are, in fact, terrible beings who should not be considered good.
You misunderstood me. I was talking from the point of view of the story, the gods can't come back if they don't first leave. I never said the gods planned it that way, but the writers did.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top