Why no love for Dragonlance? [slightly rantish]

[Dinkeldog]

Hate is too strong a word for how I feel toward Dragonlance. It's more that if you gave me Dragonlance and any other setting to play in, I'd play the other setting. I do hate tinker gnomes, though. Killing tinker gnomes can never be viewed as an evil act, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Henry]

As a dyed-in-the-wool fan of Dragonlance since about 1986 or so, I love all things about the dragonlance setting - EXCEPT for the damage that was done by gamers who took the precepts of Dragonlance races and impressed them upon non-dragonlance concepts. Somewhere between 1984 and 1990, EVERY halfling became a kleptomaniac, and EVERY gnome was tinkering with mechanical devices. Every time I saw a "tinker" gnome put into Faerun or Oerth or a homebrew setting, it made me want to throttle the DM who put them there, with no rhyme or reason why they should be there.

The dragonlance setting shows how well a D&D campaign can be designed, and it can show how magic can be made to feel wondrous, and to have its own sense of history. Artifacts such as the silver arm of Ergoth, the Hammer of Kharas, the Dragonlances, the tower and Grove of Palanthas, all these things had their place, and the rediscovery of such a thing with a known history can give a world its own characteristic "lived-in" feel.

However, there is one post I had to comment on:

Personally, I feel that protagonists should be exceptional in some way. It's different for a horror campaign, of course, or certain kinds of gritty narrative, but kender, tinkergnomes and gully dwarves don't fit in those kinds of narrative. That wouldn't be an issue, except that the tone of voice in the books, and the way the kender, gully dwarves and tinkergnomes were described... is that serious kender, smart gully dwarves and successful tinkers are not simply rare - they're impossible, as in Creation Of The World Gods Defined This Way impossible.

I certainly understand the need for an exceptional character in a heroic story - but I'm not sure how a hero being a kender, a tinker gnome, or a guly dwarf precludes them from being exceptional. You post seems to indicate the belief that a race needs to be able to be played directly against type, in order to be exceptional - which I have to disagree with.

While it would be unusual to have a smart gully dwarf, a non-klepto kender, or a tinker gnomes whose devices worked all the time, one can be quite successful playing a character with other exceptional traits. All good heroes have flaws, and still having, say a compassionate Kender cleric, or a Gully Dwarf Dwarven Defender, who defends his comrades as strongly as he would his den warren, or having a Tinker Gnome who actually gets his inventions right once in a while - enough to save the day at times. These concepts are quite workable, still without need to go directly against type.

To me, this is analogous to saying that humans cannot be dramatically appropriate characters just because by the D&D core rules you could not play one that is 400 years old, or play a dwarf who is 8 foot tall. Dwarves are shorter than humans; humans do not have the lifespan of elves. But this still leaves quite a lot of framework to design an exceptional character in.

If I misunderstood you, seasong, please feel free to correct me - I'm just not sure how the defining traits of these particular races preclude one from making an exceptional character for a heroic or dramatic story.

 

[Kai Lord]

I could remove Kender and Gully Dwarves and Tinker Gnomes and Minotaurs and Draconians and ignore the major NPCs and plotlines, but then why use the setting?

You haven't followed the thread. Plotlines, Minotaurs, and Draconians were not listed as the elements Dragonlance critics complain about, but rather the stature of NPC's (featured in every fantasy setting with corresponding novels or movies) and three fringe "sidekick" races, that by no means have to or are necessarily even meant to dominate the focus of any campaign.

 

[Crothian]

For me there was never enough setting outside the Wars to really play in. The first hardcover book was mostly useless for anything outside what was in the books. I had some modules but they were dreadful. Never picked up anything else for the setting. I was a fan of the novels, but those first RPG suppliments turned me off it.

 

[DWARF]

I enjoyed reading the Dragonlance books.

I also enjoyed reading the Lord of the Rings.

That doesn't mean I want to play them in as a game setting. And i don't.

 

[Henry]

The first hardcover book was mostly useless for anything outside what was in the books. I had some modules but they were dreadful.

Two notes here:

1) The hardcover had some great ideas, even though it really only covered the two trilogies out at the time (the Chronicles and the Twins series) But it does serve as a good reference for someone wanting to place their own stuff.

2) DL1 Dragons of Despair, and the city of Xak Tsaroth was one of the best dungeon environments I think I've ever seen in a module.

 

[johnsemlak]

And, to be fair, if we were casting ballots, my vote for absolute worst setting would actually go to the Scarred Lands.

Oh, boy, good thing this is tucked away in a DL thread. If the SL fans see this...

 

[Numion]

I read a few of the books, and the heroes there seemed a bit stupid. The dwarf (flint?) was pretty lame as dwarves go. Tasslehoff was too irritating. I constantly wanted to see him whipped or something. I guess raist was ok, but maybe taken too far, like drizzt was in the later books.

 

[seasong]

However, there is one post I had to comment on:

Heh .

I certainly understand the need for an exceptional character in a heroic story - but I'm not sure how a hero being a kender, a tinker gnome, or a guly dwarf precludes them from being exceptional. You post seems to indicate the belief that a race needs to be able to be played directly against type, in order to be exceptional - which I have to disagree with.

So would I. But it bothers me that there is no possibility of "against type".

All good heroes have flaws, and still having, say a compassionate Kender cleric, or a Gully Dwarf Dwarven Defender, who defends his comrades as strongly as he would his den warren, or having a Tinker Gnome who actually gets his inventions right once in a while - enough to save the day at times. These concepts are quite workable, still without need to go directly against type.

Firstly, kender have several racial traits which are described in the books:
- lack of fear or sense
- curiousity to the point of death
- childlike sense of wonder
- compassion & other Good alignment effects
- kleptomania

Taking away one of those is not "directly against type". Just like playing a dwarf who is passionate and paranoid, but shares his gold freely with companions is not "directly against type". The difference is that every kender ever has every one of those traits. And that list of traits is pretty close to a complete character personality already - it certainly exceeds the number of traits that most roleplayers can keep track of in one sitting.

In playing an exceptional kender, then, we are left with a choice of traits to emphasize ("Am I an exceptionally 'push-the-button' kender, or more of a magpie?"). Since the traits kender have don't lend themselves well to narrative power (particularly given their resiliency to change or "growing up"), they get relegated to comic relief.

There's a more damning thing I can point out, however: what is the difference between a kender's personality (any kender) and a halfling raised by kender? The kender won't change.

I should note: of kender, tinkers and gullies, kender are the least appealing to me. But most of what I said above applies equally well to the others.

To me, this is analogous to saying that humans cannot be dramatically appropriate characters just because by the D&D core rules you could not play one that is 400 years old, or play a dwarf who is 8 foot tall.

Except that age and height are not behavioral traits. I'm not talking about abilities or stats - I'm talking about roleplaying options and personality.

 

[tleilaxu]

On the best/worst settings thread, I noticed many chose Dragonlance as the worst, primarily because:

1. The NPC's from the novels can't be overshadowed
2. Tinker Gnomes
3. Gully Dwarves
4. Kender

First off, anyone who can't tweak the setting to make their group's PC's the central heroes of the campaign is simply a novice.

Stopped reading here.