Okay so you hate Dragonlance, how can the current designers improve it?

[Tinker Gnome]

I love pretty much everything in DL, especially the Tinker Gnomes and the 5th age.

 

[Gez]

I love pretty much everything in DL, especially the Tinker Gnomes and the 5th age.

Then this "Okay so you hate Dragonlance..." thread is not for you! Begone!

 

[DragonLancer]

Even if the author is your DM?

I am my group's DM.

A module should be self contained but should never force the players in a specific direction. It should try to guide but be flexible enough to allow players to dictate their own actions and come up with their own ways of dealing with problems.

I've not read all the original DL modules, probably only half and that was a looong time ago, but thats not how they read to me.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Little can be done at this point to get me into DL d20 since the opportunity cost is too high, but the buy-in could be cheaper.

Well, that's not SP's fault. To blame them for you having to purchase the PH, DMG, and MM is silly (and with the SRD, you don't even need them). All you need to play DL is the core campaign book and that's it. If you want to play their modules then of course you'll have to buy them. If you want to play in the War of the Lance era then that sourcebook is recommended (but again not necessary as we played for years without it).

It just irks me when people who won't buy the d20 core D&D books start weighing in with negative things to say about d20 products. It's pretty clear from that choice that such people aren't the core consumers WotC (and probably SP) are catering to. Sheesh, if you can't buy the rulebooks then who cares if you don't like a company's products?

Look, if people don't want to buy DL b/c they have plenty of other gaming materials, fine - no problem. But you don't need to rationalize it by trying to say DL isn't good gaming material. Maybe it's just not for you. And the worst is people who still talk about railroading; they clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product...

 

[scourger]

Well, that's not SP's fault. To blame them for you having to purchase the PH, DMG, and MM is silly (and with the SRD, you don't even need them). All you need to play DL is the core campaign book and that's it. If you want to play their modules then of course you'll have to buy them. If you want to play in the War of the Lance era then that sourcebook is recommended (but again not necessary as we played for years without it).

It just irks me when people who won't buy the d20 core D&D books start weighing in with negative things to say about d20 products. It's pretty clear from that choice that such people aren't the core consumers WotC (and probably SP) are catering to. Sheesh, if you can't buy the rulebooks then who cares if you don't like a company's products?

Look, if people don't want to buy DL b/c they have plenty of other gaming materials, fine - no problem. But you don't need to rationalize it by trying to say DL isn't good gaming material. Maybe it's just not for you. And the worst is people who still talk about railroading; they clearly haven't kept up on things and don't know the product...

You misundertsand me, or my summary is not clear. Either way, I'll try to summarize my position more clearly. The opportunity cost for me starts with the fact that I must forego playing several other games if I am to embrace running the new Dragonlance d20 adventures. This cost is less about money than it is about time & effort. I already own the core D&D books. Financially, I can afford to buy any new product(s) I wish. If I am going to play a module that requires 1 campaign setting book and recommends yet another sourcebook, then it has additional opportunity costs and must offer something different or otherwise worthwhile. It at least means that I have to haul 5-6 books to the game table. There is considerable time & effort to read 1-2 non-core books before getting to the adventure, especially ones jam-packed with new races, classes, skillls, feats, etc. I have many standard fantasy options available to me already, so DL d20 doesn't really offer anything to prompt me to embrace it. Perhaps I would if I had fewer other options.

None of this is the fault of any publisher. I would likely pick up DL d20 before many other settings. It does have the virtue of having at least one module and the promise of more to come. The good news is that the planned epic DL d20 campaign could be my entire weekly gaming effort for a long time, but that fact is also part of its high opportunity cost. I decided against it, but I like that fact that it is still available if I change my mind.

I also view this thread as a chance to possbily influence the publisher. I've been candid. What would be more appealing to me is an update of the original modules, which I presume didn't and wouldn't require extra (non-core) books to run. The time & effort for me to convert the original modules to 3.5 on my own is probably less than the time & effort to digest 1-2 new DL d20 books and then read the DL d20 module(s). My effort is focused on running/playing the game, not mastering alternate fantasy rules; but maybe that's what DL d20 fans crave. I don't buy the Forgotten Realms products for similar reasons. I want to pick up a module and play as easily as possible.

Some good things have come out of my effort on this thread. First, I am looking at DL d20 again after it had dropped out of sight to me. Second, I am reminded that they have a DL d20 DM screen--always a plus for me with a new campaign. Third, I am intrigued by the original modules. Perhaps they are worth a look.

 

[Gez]

How do you feel about afflicted kender and mad gnomes?

Not sure what they are exactly.

If they are, as you seem to imply, sane variants of their obnoxious counterparts, then why are they considered anomalies ("afflicted", "mad") rather than the rule they should be?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

This cost is less about money than it is about time & effort.

Ahhh, I see. I have the same problem. For some strange reason I'm still collecting Ravenloft materials even though I'm not running a Ravenloft game and probably won't be for quite some time. Maybe I'm planning ahead. Yeah, that's it...

 

[scourger]

Yes. A friend of mine describes it as an embarassment of riches. If only there were more free time...

 

[woodelf]

Well, in order to make it appeal to me:

• lose gully dwarves
• lose tinker gnomes
• lose kender
• better define irda so they aren't just ueber-elves

Really, that's about it. Those first three are what kept me from ever playing DL as a setting--and, among the literally hundreds of PCable races i allowed in my D&D game, those are probably the only 3 i never allowed. The rest of the elements of the setting are pretty cool, and i like a lot of the bits, especially during the war of the lance time period. It never particularly grabbed me, but, minus those three races, it'd at least be interesting. I'm not sure what it'd take to make it really jump out and grab me by the throat, but i suspect (1) it wouldn't be even vaguely recognizable as Dragonlance by the time you got there (based on the settings i *do* love), and (2) it'd involve not being tied so tightly to D&D3E mechanics. Frex, starting with the Iron Lore mechanics, from what i've heard about them, would be a vast improvement.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Well, in order to make it appeal to me:

• lose gully dwarves
• lose tinker gnomes
• lose kender
• better define irda so they aren't just ueber-elves

Really, that's about it. Those first three are what kept me from ever playing DL as a setting--and, among the literally hundreds of PCable races i allowed in my D&D game, those are probably the only 3 i never allowed.

So you are lookiing at deleting content to make it playable for you?

o_0

*poof* You are the DM. They are deleted as if they had never been.

So... The only remaining complaint is about the Irda? I have never involved Irda in my campaigns directly at all, but...okay.