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

[JoeGKushner]

Stop the fiction.

That's it.

It's a fairly interesting setting, but more so than the Forgotten Realms even, this setting gets the snot kicked out of it on a regular basis and the authors never make any apologies for it.

 

[DragonLancer]

I love Dragonlance. It was reading the Chronicles novels that brought me into D&D in the mid-late 80's. Same that other than the Chronicles and Legends trilogies, the other DL novels have been for the most part awful (IMO).

The setting is great high fantasy, based on the balance of good-neutrality-evil, more RP based than perhaps most others, and has a certain unique quality that I can't quite put my finger on.

I do wish with all my heart that the Chaos War/5th Age had never happened. If I could change just one thing, it would be that.

 

[Kanegrundar]

My problem with DL stems mostly from the novels. How many apocalyptic events can one setting have?!?! It got tiresome. Plus, once you factor in the range of quality from good (none of them were great) to outright crap, it made it hard to really invest anything into the setting.

As for as the games go, all the pre-D20 incarnations were railroading. The PC's were second fiddle to the supposed genius of W&H's characters. The D20 edition of the setting does a good job. I don't think DL has the absolute best presentation out there, but the setting is finally written in a way that is truly fosters ideas that aren't tied to the god-awful metaplot attached to DL. I don't plan on using the DL D20 material for anything more than mining for my homebrew setting, since it's simply standard fantasy. DL finally is of decent quality, but it's not even close to the best of the fantasy settings. I've moved into more of a Eberron and Iron Kingdoms mindset anymore, so standard fantasy doesn't really hold all that much appeal to me anymore.

Kane

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, the chronicle of DL is well known. The first attempt at a really coherent setting, one with something like a real history and pantheon vs. the more adhoc WG and latter FR. And it was an alternate setting, with slightly different takes on a lot of things. Back at the dawn of time these where big things. But the mods where bad and they kept blowing the world up, destroying the settings coherence, which was its main advantage. (as an aside, they also did blow up WG and FR, it was a bad habit TSR got into).

But is the setting unpopular? The most most hated setting is FR. The most like setting is FR...what this means is not that people are crazy but that FR is the best known. DL is a close 2nd (even WG as the default just sort of fades into the background). And it is much better to be hated by many and known by more, then to have a tiny, adoring fan base--at least if you want to sell game books.

Soveriegn Press just needs to keep up the good work, and be glad the setting is so wel known.

 

[qstor]

I like Greyhawk, Dragonlance and the Realms equally. I guess I'm an anomoly

I've tried to play or run DL but most people didn't seem to be too interested unless they were into the novels a lot.

Mike

 

[Cam Banks]

It's always really interesting to me to hear about the reasons people like or dislike Dragonlance. I can identify with a lot of it, too. Writing for the setting has been challenging not only because you have to write what the fans expect to see, based on the events and characters and themes of the novels, but what they don't expect to see (and wouldn't know what it is until they see it). We include a lot of small things, many little adventure hooks or NPCs or drop-in concepts in between the larger stuff. The recent War of the Lance hardcover campaign sourcebook is crammed to the gills with it.

I really enjoy the setting, and I playtest as much of what I write and design for it in a regular campaign. I think it's in real good shape now, under Margaret's direction and Jamie's leadership, and I do encourage anybody who hasn't already taken a look to give it a once-over. Even if you're not so keen on the setting itself, these books are packed with stuff you can use in another campaign, so everybody wins.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[twofalls]

I've read the Chronicles Novels, the first three books and really enjoyed them. That was a long time ago, and when I heard that Wizards was going to redo Dragonlance as D20 I became excited to try to run the modules I purchased years ago. The game fell apart, just like evey other game I've run with the Dragonlance modules from 1e. They lead the players about by the nose too much, and my style is more free form.

The Wizards Dragonlance Core book sucks rocks. Its poorly organized, I didn't care for the writing, and there is a lot of missing information. They didn't even offer stats for a Hoopak! Not that its hard to come up with your own stats, but my god, how can you even discuss Kender and not come up with a Hoopak?

Someone earlier said that they liked Tinker Gnomes... well I'm glad someone did. One silly race is a bit much for me, three silly races damages the setting (Kender, Gully Dwarves, Tinker Gnomes...) to the point that I feel like I'm running the Toon RPG not a serious epic setting.

I might have still become interested in the setting in spite of all of this, however learning about the next world shattering threat to come out in the 4th age, then another in the 5th age... I can only digest so many world shattering threats in a given setting, and DL has more than overdone this theme.

Now thier Sovereign Stone game... THATS a fun setting... but I won't hijack this thread.

 

[Estlor]

The novels really are the problem with the Dragonlance setting. The setting is chock full of great ideas and neat spins on standard things that work really well in the pages of fiction but less well as codified RPG rules. For example, saying, "There are no gods anymore, divine magic doesn't work," is a fabulous plot hook to start unraveling (which is precisely what the foundation of the War of the Lance was), but it makes for difficult gaming if you're trying to play before or concurrent with the Chronicles. The presence of reliable healing is a large portion of how challenge ratings are determined. If you take away divine magic and the ability to turn undead, every monster becomes tougher and undead become nearly unstoppable.

If there was some way to divorce the setting and its flavor from the novels and their mechanics, it could be possible to transform Dragonlance into something playable. As it stands, however, doing something like that would strip much of what Dragonlance is out of the setting, making it nothing more than a half-full bag of rules for plundering.

 

[mmadsen]

Like a lot of people, I read and enjoyed the first couple trilogies (in my youth), then read and did not enjoy a few more Dragonlance books beyond that.

I had already stopped playing D&D by that time though -- an old friend loved the original Chronicles and pestered me until I read them -- so I never played through any of the (in)famous modules.

Thus, I have no interest in the vast history of Krynn through its many cataclysms. I'd just like to be able to play through the original adventure series, updated to be less of a railroad.

 

[Garnfellow]

I noticed poor old DL mentioned an awful lot on the "Least Favorite Setting" thread, so I'm curious as to whether or not those who have played it and disliked it have any recommendations on how to make it more appealing to today's gamers?

I think your question is a little analagous to "How can Verne Troyer become a great NBA player." It's not a question of effort, or resources, or dedication.

Fundamentally, at its very core, the Dragonlance setting is a pastiche of elements done much better by other settings. It's Tolkien without the majesty. It's Greyhawk without the nostalgia.