What is the attraction of Dragonlance?

Raistlin. Nuff said.

Okie, a little exposition. I liked him because he was the first wizard I've read that actually wanted to become a god. And he was pretty kewl.

P.S. I wonder, how many wizards before Raistlin were portrayed as wanting to become a god?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's strange my attitude to Dragonlance. I enjoyed the first two trilogies - they weren't brilliant, but they were a fun read. In places they were very good, in others very tired and cliched (and no, I don't think they created the cliche, the authors exploited it).

But after reading the books, I couldn't imagine playing in the setting. The players either had the choice of playing second string to the novel's NPCs, getting to watch history unfold. Or they ignored the main plot, and then simply had the world change around them. I can't quite articulate it, but with such an epic story running through the setting, the PCs either were forced to echo the novels or be second rate.

So I boughtsome stuff for it, read the novels, and never found a soul who wanted to play in the setting. Kinda odd really.
 

I love how everything is so structured.

7 Good Gods
7 Neutral Gods
7 Evil Gods

What other setting takes advantage of gods being Neutral?

White, Red, Black robed mages...

That's the main thing I like, the Tri-Structure of the world. Then there's just various things that make it cool, but aren't completely exclusive to DragonLance:

Orders of Knights
Good Dragons/Evil Dragons
Death Knights, like Soth
Dragon Riders
Lots of types of Elves, no Drow
Kender (they CAN be a good thing, when used/played "right")


It just, to me, has a lot of flavor.
 

for me the attraction to the setting can be summed up in only a few words. characters, villians and feel.

some see them as cliche but the characters pretty much set the pattern for all the "group of adventurers" fantasy fiction that has come since. the character of raistlin, once you really get to know him, can be identified with by anyone who has more mental endowments then physical, the resentment a smaller sibling can feel toward the larger, athletic, popular sibling that is praised by all is pretty much the basis for the raistlin character in the end. those of us who are often assumed stupid because of our size and lack of true confidence can identify with caramon in the early books. and anyone who never really feels like they belong when they're around their family can't help but identify with tanis half elven. all of these are reasons to like the novels. and i think that the world is fairly novel driven.

the villians actually give you reasons to hate them in the books. players actually hate the forces of the dragonarmies so when they are fighting them, they really get into it and want to succeed. this is just one example. also because the major high level people are somewhat few and far between (unlike FR, this is not a FR flame) when someone like dalamar is used in a campaign, you can bet that everyone at the table knows what to expect, and not to just attack elven black robed mages.

i like the organisations, the nations, i know more about the history of ansalon then i do about earth and i am not lacking in knowledge about world history. this is the only campaign setting that i know well enough to DM with total authority that i did not create.

also 5th age saga rules left such a bad taste in the mouth of so many DL fans that we really want to wash the taste out all these years later. no other setting has been so horribly butchered and we really are still bitter that TSR destroyed dragonlance for a few years. you probably never had to watch your favorite setting go down slowly, like someone shot it in the stomach once and left it to die.
 
Last edited:

Nice question

First thing is that the DL books were the first stuff I read in english outside of your typical 9th grade english class literature :P That it was fantasy, and had something to do with D&D was a big added bonus.

The real fascination was that Krynn wasn´t trying for a Tolkienesque feel, for a change. The races and cultures had their very own, in-the-story reasons for behaving and existing. The concept of religions and magical orders of different alignment not beating their brains out on sight because they recognize a need for balance...Kender not being the typical halflings, and some other humanoids being the main focus of attention than bloody ORCS. The whole setting tasted of traditions, histories, and a thought-out line of creation, something you couldn´t have said about Mystara at that time (sorry, I love it still, but it was patchwork :D ). It was just a real big change..and I loved it...and love it still :)
 

Geron Raveneye said:
First thing is that the DL books were the first stuff I read in english outside of your typical 9th grade english class literature :P That it was fantasy, and had something to do with D&D was a big added bonus.

It's the same thing for me!

Things I liked were:
- the superstition of most races
- lots of dragons
- one pantheon for all the races (paladine/bahamut is revered by all the good races, and has aspect of a platinium dragon, an old mage and some others), no Corellon here.
- characters relationship (twins warrior (Caramon) and wizard (Raistlin), kender and dwarf)
- no fireball

As a side note, the major reason that I disliked LotR, while my friends and brother like it, is that when I was smaller than I am today;) I read lots of book, and due to my mother being from a Celtic cultural backround and speaking a Celtic langage (breton), I read lots of stories involving dragons, elves, goblins, gnome, and fey alongside french classic litterature, so Tolkien appeared to me as the worst of both: cliché and "baroque" writing.
 
Last edited:

Someone else mentioned Caramon, and the Kender/Gnome/Gully thing has been brought up, so I thought I would mention it.

Kender/Gnomes/Gully Dwarves were all massivly "dumb down" outside the "Canon 6"... and so was Caramon.

Read the first three books. Caramon isn't as smart as Raistlin, but he isn't STUPID. His INT is probably average or just below (going by just the books here, not the "official stats"). He's actualy quite wise, as some of his conversations with Tanis and Sturm show. Yes, he is a little blind when it comes to his brother (BUT!, as conversations in the book show, not as blind as people think... he KNOWS his brother has problems, he just overlooks them), and he generaly assumes the best of people, but he's not a blabbering idiot like he turned out in the latter spin-off books, a mental retard that couldn't tie his shoes if someone didn't watch him.
 


same for both of us with Wheel of Time, though I liked Jordan's early Conan books).

I was about to say something incredibly rude, but nah. Though I do suggest that you rephrase that statement.

As for 5th Age, I think SKR posted around here that what happened with 5th Age wasn't TSR's fault. It was Hickman and Weiss who essentially screwed up the setting, themselves, and TSR had to make do with what they had. The Saga system sucked, but the setting itself isn't TSR's fault.
 

Reasons I hate DL

Let me count the ways:

1) My first exposure to DL was the adventures, which we quickly learned to hate. They had the tragic flaw of trying to follow in the footsteps of the book. It was a railroad fest of the worst order.

2) The fannish book adoration and attempts to invoke the books as law was much worse at its height than it ever was with FR.

3) One word: Kender.

4) Two words: Tinker gnomes.

5) And perhaps the most irritating of all, it poisoned Death Knights. It was bad enough that DL fanboys got the impression that Death Knights originated with Krynn, but subsequent 2e text was polluted with campaign garbage about Solamnic Knights, which of course only further muddled the thinking of clueless DL fans.

For one, I was please to see a Greyhawk specific take on something -- in a recent LGJ -- to help correct the butchering of Death Knights.
 

Remove ads

Top