Dragonlance Thoughts

[klofft]

The discussion on Spelljammer has led me to wonder. I recently started reading the 3e DL campaign setting. While I've been playing D&D since 1e, I never read -anything- from this setting. I knew of it and chose to ignore it. Anyway, I decided to read the setting now as a source to pilfer more ideas for my homebrew.

However, I note that there is a lot of profound love or disdain for the setting, as well as a lot of complaints of setting retcon in the 3e.

As a "setting virgin" (and I suspect I'm rare...ya know, like regular virgins ), I invite the vivid debate: what's so great or so crappy about the setting? What things were changed in 3e that are so bad (or perhaps good)?

Thanks!
C

PS - I apologize in advance if this discussion is a million years old. Feel free to send me to an old debate if necessary. Thanks again.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

There was a thread recently about the original Dragonlance Chronicles being akin to Lord of the Rings in terms of defining some people's view of the fantasy genre.

From a gaming, as opposed to a literary standpoint, I've never played Dragonlance. I read the books first and it has always felt more like a "book" world to me. Same reason I can't play the Star Wars RPG. The main story has been told. What's my PC supposed to do?

That having been said, it is on my list of things to get, eventually, though by the time I can afford it, it will be out of print.

 

[lrsach01]

One thing that gets brought up frequently is the idea of "railroading" in Dragonlance. In the original modules, the players were supposed to hit certain points in the story and succeed or (as I've seen it termed) the war is lost and evil rules all. I never played those original modules so I can't comment. The 3.0/3.5 setting update gives the Dragonalnce world and more "real" feel to it. The people at Margaret Weis Productions have done a FABULOUS job putting out setting and fluff books delving into all the nooks and crannies of the world of Krynn. The campaign path they put out is great. I've been running my group through it and we are having a lot of fun. It has those "goals" the first modules had, but they don't have a railroading feel because of the way they are written. Your party can get to wherever they need to by all sorts of methods fleshed out by the excellent source books.

I'm may be a bit biased since I love the game and am running, but I HIGHLY recommend Dragonlance. MWP has the license until 2008 so PLEASE get their books...especially Towers of High Sorcery (which I understand is coming back into print soon).

 

[francisca]

One thing that gets brought up frequently is the idea of "railroading" in Dragonlance.

It's absolutely true. DL1 was a railroad job when run as written. I swore off DL for years, and have never read any of the novels.

However, the past year, I have been playing in a DL game and it's been fun. The DM doesn't care about the novels and is just running fun adventures. It's an OK setting. I'm not super keen on the Moon Magic and some of the wrinkles, but it's not keeping me from enjoying the game.

 

[pawsplay]

Good:
well fleshed out history and mythology
good, old-fashioned swords-and-sorcery-meets-chivalric-romance feel
lots of things for adventurers to do
unique bad guys, slightly different from your typical D&D world

Bad:
kender
gnomes
gully dwarves
huge over-arching metaplots that dwarf the actions of individual characters
a couple of decades worth of retcons to deal with

The Ugly:
the setting is well tread enough you're going to have to read a lot to get into it, if you plan on playing a recognizable Krynn

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Interestingly, I was a HUGE Dragonlace fan through 1E and 2E, but with the advent of the 5th Age and the "Dragons of a NEw Age" trilogy, my interest started to wane.

My interest has revived somewhat since the license went to MW, but I check each book on a case-by-case basis.

Bad:
kender
gnomes
gully dwarves
huge over-arching metaplots that dwarf the actions of individual characters
a couple of decades worth of retcons to deal with

Well, the last two are serious problems; have been for some time.
But I actually like the first three!!

 

[Dragonhelm]

Good:
well fleshed out history and mythology
good, old-fashioned swords-and-sorcery-meets-chivalric-romance feel
lots of things for adventurers to do
unique bad guys, slightly different from your typical D&D world

Yes!

Bad:
kender
gnomes
gully dwarves
huge over-arching metaplots that dwarf the actions of individual characters
a couple of decades worth of retcons to deal with

Kender, gnomes, and gully dwarves are all subjective. You don't have to use them in a game if you don't want. Plus, I think they all have potential if you don't play stereotypes.

The metaplot can be a little tricky, but what I advise newcomers to do is find your era of play and make the world your own. Post-Legends and Post-War of Souls are ideal eras. There are no draconians that will come to your house and force you to read all the supplemental books!

As for the retcons...yeah, they happen. The current game books, though, has the latest info, so you should be set.

The Ugly:
the setting is well tread enough you're going to have to read a lot to get into it, if you plan on playing a recognizable Krynn

Not necessarily. You could read the Chronicles trilogy, grab the DLCS and War of the Lance books, and be able to play.

Now, if you wanted to play in the Age of Mortals, I agree that it would be more of an investment in time. Of course, with Weis and Hickman as authors, it's well worth it!

Of course, I am biased.

 

[pawsplay]

One weird thing I've noticed: in the books, gully dwarves are universally pathetic. However, if you made a gully dwarf rogue (their favored class), they would actually be quite boss.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hmm, I don't know that I'd describe Krynn as having a sword-and-sorcery feel. Romantic chivalry and high fantasy, yeah, but I think Conan would be quite lost and confused among the generally benevolent societies and religions of Ansalon.

And I definitely agree the annoying races really don't have to be, although it'd just take one player (or the DM) to make them so.

 

[drscott46]

Why the disdain for kender and tinker gnomes?

In fact, I find the Krynn version of gnomes to be so much more interesting than the "core" gnome that pretty much any gnome I would ever play (or have as a PC in a game I run) would be of the Krynnish style. In my mind, the core gnome is dull as dishwater.

Kender are interesting because they're different as well. They're not like any of the core race templates- not like halflings, not like gnomes, not like dwarves. Sure, they're annoying to deal with in-character, but that's part of the charm. (Although I have never quite understood why Dragonlance feels it necessary to exclude halflings in favor of kender.)

Gully dwarves can be fun as well, although it's a little harder to keep them from being a running joke instead of a legit PC-class thing. But my personal gaming style is a little more sympathetic to useless humor than many others. Pretty much every character I've ever played is some form of a delusional idiot (it's my specialty).