NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 8342007" data-attributes="member: 11760">That's one interpretation of events. But as I recall, the lawsuit itself says that WotC objected to elements of the proposed story and, after going back and forth several times with Weis/Hickman, apparently gave up on the process. The lawsuit was to get WotC to pay up or restart the process, which is what it accomplished.The "oh, the problem was actually the drow" is speculation by folks that don't want any fault to land on Weis or Hickman.I remember when November's book was "definitely" going to be Dragonlance, too, and that there was no way that Strixhaven was going to be a D&D setting this year. (Both arguments have been made here since January, often quite vehemently.)Gully dwarves say hello.Dragonlance has a lot of stuff that would never be part of a WotC setting released for the first time in WotC. Deciding that none of that stuff is the problem is dancing past a lot of pre-existing issues with the brand.If your argument is a bunch of suppositions based on your other suppositions based on still other suppositions, it's going to be hard to correctly reverse-engineer WotC's thought processes.The only thing we know for sure is that WotC doesn't think Dragonlance is a money maker for them, given that they've never published any game material for it themselves. They've obviously considered it, including for this edition, with the D&D Next Kender. (No one knows when Joe Mangionello's alleged playtest draconians were created, so it's not evidence of any Dragonlance plans later than D&D Next unless we get some concrete details, not supposition, that clarify things.)</blockquote>

Verification