Why do Dragonlance campaings never work?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I decided to give Dragonlance another try when the War of the Souls Trilogy was published. I'd enjoyed some of the original Weis & Hickman writing, but I'd been frustrated with the excessive railroading in the original module series, and so hadn't messed with DL since DL5 was published.

My reaction to the first book of "War of Souls": "What? They've blown the world up how many times since Chronicles? And we're still using the same tired old plot devices?"

Needless to say, it didn't leave a good taste in my mouth, or desire to pick up more DL material. Reviews of the DLCS have been good enough that I'm still tempted to pick it up for my collection, though -- IMO, a campaign setting is what the DM and players make of it, regardless of what the source material is, or what the tie-ins are. You can have a good or bad campaign in any setting, with virtually any focus -- if you're willing to make the effort.

Unfortunately, the quality of tie-in material has discouraged me from making the effort, since it's just easier to stick to those settings I know better and have had better luck with. Even though I know I shouldn't judge the campaign setting by the other material, it's hard not to, sometimes.

 

[Orius]

Although I have to add, I'm too in love with homebrewing to ever be really excited about any setting, Dragonlance included. Some of the ideas it has are really good -- the whole dragon wars and legions of dragons, draconians and the like based on color is a great idea, and one I could really Get Down Tonight on.

I'm the same way. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of running a DL, Planescape, or even Realms campaign, but in the end I prefer sticking with my own world. I just like using my own ideas more over someone else's. Even then though, there is some slight influence from DL on my world, along with influences from other D&D settings like Greyhawk, the Realms, and so on.

 

[Orius]

Ah, my much-maligned Kender favorites.

I think the misunderstanding of Kender are the result of too many "loonies" (of the infamous "real men, real roleplayers, and loonies" trio) over-playing kender. If one reads Tasslehoof Burrfoot in the original series, a better, more SANE picture of Kender emerges. The importance is in the misunderstanding of "fearless." When they say "fearless," I think of it in terms of the fearlessness of children.

Children are a wonderful subject to observe, especially when they are attempting something that, should they know any better, will get them killed. [snip] He recognizes danger and sad attitudes; he just doesn't recognize that something bad could happen to HIM.

Kender, as Tasslehoof shows us, also recognizes when an action would mean the end to ALL fun, FOREVER. A kender wouldn't jump off of the top of Pax Tharkas, and dash himself to pieces on the mountainside, just because he was fearless; however, introduce the concept of a bungee cord to him, and he's the first one in line. He might GET killed doing it, but he would not be hesitant ONE SECOND in strapping up.

Kender thievery is, likewise, conceived as wanton theft of the party's valaubles. Also IMHO a misconception. Based on Tasslehoff's misadventures, he stole items that were mostly useless; he NEVER stole the gem from Raistlin's staff, or any of the companions' main gear and weapons; he stole a paring knife here, a semi-precious gem there, a kerchief, a piece of string, things that made little difference. The one to whom it DID make a difference, was Raistlin, who was possessive of everything, especially his spell components; it took threat of magical torture and death to get him to stop stealing his components.

I have to completely agree. I'd say the rabid dislike of kender come from DMs having to put up with extremely badly played kender.

Kender aren't suicidally crazy kleptomaniacs. That was never Tas' angle. I'd classify it as extreme curiosity. A kender is always more curious about something new than afraid of it. That explains the crazy stunts, as well as the theft.

They don't take things because they have value; they take things because they're like the little kid who can't keep his hands off something, even when he's told not to touch it. And then they end up stuffing the item in a pouch absent-mindedly, because they're like really hyperactive children with very short attention spans, and they forget the first item when something more interesting comes around. And yes, the only reason that Tas never messed with Raistlin's stuff is because Raistlin was smart (and mean ) enough to tell him in no uncertain terms what would happen to him if he did.

I agree with the bungee-jumping statement. I could definitely see Tas trying to do some bungee-jumping at Pax Tharkas or the High Clerist's Tower, all the time trying to talk Flint into joining him!

Kender could also work in other campaigns too. Planescape for example. Kender would make great Sensates.

Gully Dwarves (also my favorites) are defintely harder to play, and no doubt are NOT to be trusted in scouting reports ("How many hobgoblins do you see, Mugwump?" "Two... at least two!") But they are not stupid by any stretch - just ignorant.) They have common sense (though not reknowned for it), are very dexterous, and possessed of the singularly impressive ability to forge their way into the nastiest (as in, filth-ridden) situations and not losing their lunch. It would be fun to play a Gully Dwarf Barbarian, or a rogue who pinched the pockets of NPC's who took pity on him for his wretched look.

Nod. Another aspect of gully dwarves is loyalty. Most people push gullies around, and they resent that. But if you show some kindness to one, he or she will have a sense of loyalty towards you. Take Bupu for example. Gully dwarves are hardly geniuses, but they can be useful if you treat them right.

 

[Mista Collins]

Just have Tanis and Co. killed off and have the PCs take their spots in saving the world or something like that. Or make your own campaign world and use DL as a basis. Don't tie yourself down to one thing. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Nightfall]

I prefer they just kept it close but the only thing in WoS trilogy I disliked immensely was killing off Soth. He deserved to go back to Ravenloft dammitt!!

 

[talinthas]

heh. over hickman's dead body =)

 

[Nightfall]

Trust me, it can be arranged. Soth deserved better.

 

[Derulbaskul]

An interesting question to consider is whether it is possible to publish a successful game world at the same time as publishing a successful novel line?

 

[DragonLancer]

Dragonlance campaigns never worked for me for two reasons:

1) You always feel like second fiddle to the greats from the 3rd and 4th ages.
2) The whole Tower of Sorcery thing now being dismantled isn't that good.

1. Thats because the novels have always focused on the same set of heroes time and time again. So I agree with you here. The novels should be more diverse like the FR novels.
But even saying that,no one is playing second fiddle that badly. Do you really want to do the same story as Tanis & Co, or would you rather tell your own that runs parallel or whenever?

2. Aye. I never much cared for the 5th age/Age of Mortals. I have however decided to enter that time with my current campaign but with some major changes to the events to reflect how I like Dragonlance.

 

[Ottergame]

I must be alone here in thinking this, but I actually liked the 5th Age game. My favorite character I've ever played was in 5th Age.