What is the attraction of Dragonlance?

[beta-ray]

Dunadan maybe it is better that you remain lurked. :b All kidding aside, you are entitled to your opinion even though I disagree with it.

I have never gamed in the Dragonlance world (the original post implied that was what the poster was asking about, but didn't state it explicitly) but I have read some of the books. While I can't say that they are great works of classic literature, I found them a good read.They read very quickly and the characters are appealing. It may not be high art, but at least they were not pretentious (they did not read like it was trying to be high art to me). And I also liked the Curse of the Azure Bonds series of books.

Guess I am just a ignoramus, though I think insulting the authors like that shows a lack of class.
[edit: I reread the previous post and I guess it wasn't a DIRECT slam to the authors, but it still was quite insulting]

 

[Crothian]

Fot me Dragonlance has no attraction because of the books. The books where to good and the RPG suppliments failed to capture the feel of the books.

Hopefully, the new RPG books will succeed where I think the others failed.

 

[Dúnadan]

beta-ray , perhaps I was overly harsh, and as an aspiring writer I respect Weiss and Hickman for what they achieved, for despite my distaste for their works, obviously many people enjoy them, and that in itself is commendable. I suppose I'm just bitter at being jaded towards most fantasy after reading Martin. Though I must admit, it was worth it....

 

[trancejeremy]

What I liked about it, was it wasn't the usual AD&D.

The magic was different (White, red, and black mages)

I liked the knightly orders (basically prestige classes)

The races were different.

I actually like the tinker gnomes (in moderation)

I also liked the early novels. Raistlin was pretty cool, I thought.

 

[Randolpho]

Dragonlance is what brought me in to AD&D in the first place. The setting is great and really captured my imagination.

I find the original Dragonlance Chronicles to be far better than anything Tolkien ever wrote. But thats just my opinion.

I wouldn't go that far!

The Chronicles were outstanding, to be sure, and I might put them on par with the Lord of the Rings, but surpass? Nope, sorry, modern fiction can't do that, IMO.

Dunedan -- Obviously you haven't read Harry Potter yet!!! What didn't you like, specifically, about the books? Care to cite actual details that bothered you?

As to what you specifically mentioned:

with cliched characters, shoddy writing, and, at best, an amateurish attempt at world-building.

Surely you jest! "Cliched characters?" Um... I don't know what fiction you read before Chronicles, but the only reason you could say those characters are cliched is because they were the characters that *set* the cliches most fantasy writers use today! At the time these books were written, that particular set of characters was quite refreshing and unique.

"Shoddy writing"... hmm... well, as an aspiring writer yourself, surely you've read a bit of what modern writers have to offer... I'll agree the writing isn't nearly as poetic as, say, the Lord of the Rings, but I've seen critically acclaimed pieces of work that were far more poorly written than the Chronicles were. Two specific examples come to mind: Harry Potter and pretty much anything written by Ernest Hemingway (hack!). Harry Potter novels at least have the saving grace that they were written for children. One can only assume critics took that into account before thumbs-upping them.

"ameturish worldbuilding"... I flat-out disagree. On the contrary, I'd say that "outstanding worldbuilding" would be one of the top features of the novels.

 

[Nightfall]

Well I guess the ONLY attraction for me was Lord Soth. Basically because BEFORE that I had never run into a Death Knight. Course I read a little more after that BUT Lord Soth is still my ideal for a Death Knight...well next to St. Kazagoth of course!

But other than that, the books were good but I don't consider them equal on the levels of Tolkien, Tad Williams or George R.R. Martin. (Or Jordan. Sorry I know it's not popular but I STILL enjoy WoT.) They are just different visions of fantasy. I see Dragonlance as more HEROIC/High Fantasy. The others are more...indepth in my view.

 

[cbatt]

For me it's the world building. The epic sense of history. Thousands upon thousands of years of it. It has substance and weight. Maybe not to the extent of Middle Earth (what does?), but far more than pretty much any other standard FRPG setting, especially ones designed for use with DnD.

The quality of writing in the chronicles really isn't the greatest, but it is leagues ahead of most game related fiction and the setting, plot, and characters more than make up for any shortcomings of literary technique.

 

[Simon Magalis]

[ the first three (and only) Dragonlance books that I read were the epitome of dumbed-down, childish fantasty stories, with cliched characters, shoddy writing, and, at best, an amateurish attempt at world-building.

Man I couldn't agree with this any more than I do! It IS a pretty cool concept, but those books were HORRIBLE! There are even places where the authors left out characters because they forgot they were along in the huge party that had formed. The romance depictions are particularly cliche. I remember thinking that they were sort of simple in a bad sort of way when I was 13. I respect people's opinions, but better than TOLKIEN!? Please.

 

[Moleculo]

I must say that i have read better fantasy in the about 6 years since i read them for the first time. I will also say at the time they were some of the best books i had read (when i was 12 heh), and definately the best TSR books i have read (Though salvatore's stuff was good i though (the darkelf trilogy, not as much the first 3 books though)). I was a young kid and i thought they looked kind of trashy at first, but i picked them up and couldn't stop reading them. They are well worth the read!!

jake

 

[Henry@home]

This has to go in a "to each his own" category, because the books were quite enjoyable to me. I, like others can identify parts that were somewhat Tolkien-derived (such as the muscial and literary influences and the elves), but then, what classic fantasy literature today isn't?

If one thought the romances in Dragonlance were childish, then the LotR romances must have been childish as well, because pasage for passage, they were cut from the same cloth, although the women in Dragonlance were more than carboard background cutouts. They fought both with and FOR their men, and one woman (Laurana) went through amazing dramatic growth during the three Chronicles novels. One should really read carefully through Laurana's changes, to realize their depth and profundity, before marking it off as "dumbed down and childish.

There really is more there than one realizes. I highly encourage everyone to read it in its entirity, because there are just as much passion, depth, fun, fear and thrills there as was in Tolkien or Martin.