A Dragonlance board under 4th Edition Campaign Settings?
Is there something we haven't been told yet that we should probably be told quite soon?
yes, Yes, YES! I need me some
who is making these things? I didn't think Wizards owned the rights to Dragonlance?
TSR owned the rights and WotC bought TSR, so yeah WotC owns Dragonlance. WotC decided to license a third party company to produce DL material. WotC recently took back the license which it seems was an attempt at bringing it back! :D
~~~
Maybe DL will be upgraded to 4e via the D&D Insider for a year or two. This way WotC can really see hopw popular the setting is and can then, if it is indeed popular, make a CS for it in 2010 (Eberron gets 2009 CS slot :D ).
I really hope WotC brings it back. I've never run the setting but it seems interesting enough. I would love to see some fresh material on it!
TSR owned the rights and WotC bought TSR, so yeah WotC owns Dragonlance. WotC decided to license a third party company to produce DL material. WotC recently took back the license which it seems was an attempt at bringing it back! :D
Which is too bad in some ways. The folks over at Margaret Weis Productions/Sovereign Press did a very good job with 3.0/3.5 Dragonlance. You remember Margaret Weis? The co-author of the original DL setting? Since the current stuff still has her stamp of approval, it still has the classic DL feel, despite the changes over the years. The continuity still follows(ed) the WotC DL novels.
I'm not sure that WotC needed to take DL back. Ravenloft? Sure. But Dragonlance? Not so much.
Which is too bad in some ways. The folks over at Margaret Weis Productions/Sovereign Press did a very good job with 3.0/3.5 Dragonlance. You remember Margaret Weis? The co-author of the original DL setting? Since the current stuff still has her stamp of approval, it still has the classic DL feel, despite the changes over the years. The continuity still follows(ed) the WotC DL novels.
I'm not sure that WotC needed to take DL back. Ravenloft? Sure. But Dragonlance? Not so much.
Well in the end I believe they took back DL so they could haphazardly update it to 4e via the D&DI as another incentive for reluctant players to subscribe.
I haven't read any of the Weis DL setting books, companies around here just don't sell them (or people snatch them up before I see them), so I haven't had much DL beyond the CS, which IMO was really poorly done. I mean it didn't even have a full sized map showcasing the world in it!
I'm excited to see WotC snatch it back, at least in so far as I will now be able to read about it to a much greater degree than in the past few years. Still I don't have high hopes after the DLCS... Maybe WotC will get Weis to help write articles for the D&DI.
looking foward to it.
Well in the end I believe they took back DL so they could haphazardly update it to 4e via the D&DI as another incentive for reluctant players to subscribe.
I'm not exactly sure how the subscription service works, but as long as I can get a complete campaign setting dead tree version for Dragonlance, I'm cool with it. If they're going to require a subscription in order to access additional material, I'll do what I did when 3e first came out and make it up as I went.
I haven't read any of the Weis DL setting books, companies around here just don't sell them (or people snatch them up before I see them), so I haven't had much DL beyond the CS, which IMO was really poorly done. I mean it didn't even have a full sized map showcasing the world in it!
Not the fault of SP/MWP. The folks at WotC had full control of the DLCS. That was part of the license agreeement. WotC produces the core campaign setting and the third party got to make whatever else they wanted for the setting. After getting approval from WotC, of course, on the additional material. The folks at SP/MWP have done a marvelous job with their material. Each product only got better and better, as, coincidentily enough, they let more and more of the fans contribute and proof the products.
I'm excited to see WotC snatch it back, at least in so far as I will now be able to read about it to a much greater degree than in the past few years. Still I don't have high hopes after the DLCS... Maybe WotC will get Weis to help write articles for the D&DI.
Again the DLCS was a strictly WotC product. The SP/MWP material was far superior to the WotC produced DLCS. The DLCS is not even listed on the official DL product page. Nearly everythign that is in the DLCS has been "corrected" in later books from the great folks at SP/MWP. THe DLCS is essentially defunct if you have all the SP/MWP products. Knowing this info, I'll be deeply saddened to find out if WotC is planning on doing all the DL material, that they are planning on releasing, on their own. Without bringing in the folks from SP/MWP for consults, as contributor, or to do the complete job I feel we'll end up with the same quality that we got from the DLCS. I'd feel much better about it if they'd let folks at SP/MWP write the material and then just put their stamp approval and logo on the book.
maby this is a portend of things to come
Good Gravy! I certainly hope not. Personally I couldn't stand the Planescape setting. It made world hopping far to "normal" for me, and it broke down the walls that made each setting unique. That was my take on it. To each their own though.
Are Wizards of the Coast planning on producing 4E material for Dragonlance? Maybe. But this board is not an indication either way. Just business as usual for Wizards of the Coast.
That's how I see it anyway.
Ravenmantle
Dragonlance was one of the supported campaigns under 3.5, just like Eberron, the Realms, and Greyhawk. Of course, only one sourcebook got published under the WotC imprint, after which Margaret's company took over the publication of additional official material, but that's enough I think to elevate it to this tier rather than lump it under "other campaign worlds" like Dark Sun and Birthright which did not have support.
Also, Dragonlance continues to have novels and short story anthologies published, which to my mind is another indication that it's not just an afterthought for WotC.
Cheers,
Cam
But, if an ipothetical return in the hands of WOTC means more product publishing, i would be happy.
It would mean also adventures on Dungeon, and it would be great, considering my lack of time to prepare adventures.
Obvioulsy, considering that i liked SP Dragonlance products, i wish a collaboration between the two staffs.
But most of all... I want Dragonlance continue to be published!!!
GIMME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again the DLCS was a strictly WotC product. The SP/MWP material was far superior to the WotC produced DLCS.
The people who worked on the DLCS are with SP/MWP; WotC only published it. And while the DLCS wasn't that great, the Age of Mortals book was worse. Towers of High Sorcery was pretty good, and starting with War of the Lance, all of the books have been excellent. I think the folks at SP/MWP were just trying to figure out how to best produce gamebooks. They figured it out fairly quickly.
IIRC 2009 is the 25th anniversary of DL, so perhaps WotC will do something with that.
*holding my breath*
:bounce:
IIRC 2009 is the 25th anniversary of DL, so perhaps WotC will do something with that.
Good point. It would make a lot of sense for WotC to do something with this. Especially if the first animated movie does well, they could declare 2009 the Year of the Lance, with a wide variety of DL products being released.
But then again, that might just be wishful thinking.
I'm not exactly sure how the subscription service works, but as long as I can get a complete campaign setting dead tree version for Dragonlance, I'm cool with it. If they're going to require a subscription in order to access additional material, I'll do what I did when 3e first came out and make it up as I went.
Not the fault of SP/MWP. The folks at WotC had full control of the DLCS. That was part of the license agreeement. WotC produces the core campaign setting and the third party got to make whatever else they wanted for the setting. After getting approval from WotC, of course, on the additional material. The folks at SP/MWP have done a marvelous job with their material. Each product only got better and better, as, coincidentily enough, they let more and more of the fans contribute and proof the products.
Again the DLCS was a strictly WotC product. The SP/MWP material was far superior to the WotC produced DLCS. The DLCS is not even listed on the official DL product page. Nearly everythign that is in the DLCS has been "corrected" in later books from the great folks at SP/MWP. THe DLCS is essentially defunct if you have all the SP/MWP products. Knowing this info, I'll be deeply saddened to find out if WotC is planning on doing all the DL material, that they are planning on releasing, on their own. Without bringing in the folks from SP/MWP for consults, as contributor, or to do the complete job I feel we'll end up with the same quality that we got from the DLCS. I'd feel much better about it if they'd let folks at SP/MWP write the material and then just put their stamp approval and logo on the book.
Sounds cool, I wish they sold more Wies DL Material here in Reno, oh well
~~~
Good point. It would make a lot of sense for WotC to do something with this. Especially if the first animated movie does well, they could declare 2009 the Year of the Lance, with a wide variety of DL products being released.
But then again, that might just be wishful thinking.
Don't say things like that, I need my 4e Eberron CS! ... Though there seems to be a plan here, what would be a better 25th anniversary gift to the readers than a 4e DL CS?
Aww, I miss Eberron even more now!
Still if they don't do Eberron by 2009, then I'll prolly convert to DL! Good Gravy! I certainly hope not. Personally I couldn't stand the Planescape setting. It made world hopping far to "normal" for me, and it broke down the walls that made each setting unique. That was my take on it. To each their own though.
Planescape actually is a very cool setting, but it doesn't really fit together with most other settings placed in material worlds. Make either a 'normal' or a completely planar campaign, but don't jump from a regular prime world to sigil and back again.
Sounds cool, I wish they sold more Wies DL Material here in Reno, oh well
You can get them through Amazon or from the MWP site itself. If you order from the MWP site they come signed!
Sounds cool, I wish they sold more Wies DL Material here in Reno, oh well
~~~
Hey. I was original created in Reno. You can't get the MWP products there? I'd swear there was a nice little hobby shop near Hobbies of Reno at Moana Lane and Kietzke. They can't special order? hrmm.
On the upswing, I think this might be a good sign. before, Dragonlance was in the domain of the "other worlds" subforum. Here in the 4e D&D groupings, it's on equal footing with FR, EB and such.
Weldon
Well in the end I believe they took back DL so they could haphazardly update it to 4e via the D&DI as another incentive for reluctant players to subscribe.
I haven't read any of the Weis DL setting books, companies around here just don't sell them (or people snatch them up before I see them), so I haven't had much DL beyond the CS, which IMO was really poorly done. I mean it didn't even have a full sized map showcasing the world in it!
I'm excited to see WotC snatch it back, at least in so far as I will now be able to read about it to a much greater degree than in the past few years. Still I don't have high hopes after the DLCS... Maybe WotC will get Weis to help write articles for the D&DI.
You might want to note the the only sourcebook for DL 3E\3.5E by WoTC was the Campaign Setting. Everything else was published by Sovereign Press (who coordinated with Margaret Weis). So I am not sure how much value I would put into WoTC putting out sourcebooks for DL 4E.
Again the DLCS was a strictly WotC product. The SP/MWP material was far superior to the WotC produced DLCS. The DLCS is not even listed on the official DL product page. Nearly everythign that is in the DLCS has been "corrected" in later books from the great folks at SP/MWP.
You mean they uncorrected what WotC edited in the draft material written by Sovereign Press folks.
You can get them through Amazon or from the MWP site itself. If you order from the MWP site they come signed!
Wow, signed books sound cool, though I'd worry about using them because, well, they're signed! :D Still, I'll look into it, thanks for the tip!
Hey. I was original created in Reno. You can't get the MWP products there? I'd swear there was a nice little hobby shop near Hobbies of Reno at Moana Lane and Kietzke. They can't special order? hrmm.
You can get them but like I said, its just they seem to fly off the shelves very quickly. We must have a really hardcore group some where in town, lol. As for the special ordering, I've thought about it but usually decided against it because the DLCS was just... well it was just plain bad in my opinion. That spilled over into me not wanting to really buy any other DL products w/o looking at them prior to purchase for fear of wasting my money.
Still, it's nice to hear that other DL products have been a lot better!
eberon = not cool. I care so little I'm not even going to check and see if it's spelled right. Dragon Lance was awsome. Great story. Classes and races were more interesting. I'm mean it had Kender's. Come on. What's cooler than a kender?
You spelled it wrong, Eberron has 2 'r's. At any rate, Eberron is a great setting, not everyone's cup of tea I'll grant you that but by the same token DL isn't either.
People probably look at DL as 'just another Tolkien wanna be' just as people look at Eberron as 'just another Steampunky Pirate-Ninja-Robots Riding Dinosaurs setting.' Neither of which is true but people go on with their deluded notions because it gives them comfort.
Also, Minotaurs are cooler than Kender any day. :D
People probably look at DL as 'just another Tolkien wanna be' just as people look at Eberron as 'just another Steampunky Pirate-Ninja-Robots Riding Dinosaurs setting.' Neither of which is true but people go on with their deluded notions because it gives them comfort.
Also, Minotaurs are cooler than Kender any day. :D
First did you even read what followed my misspelling of eberron. Second I'm not against tech in games. I love Shadowrun. Not the video game but the pen and paper game.
First did you even read what followed my misspelling of eberron. Second I'm not against tech in games. I love Shadowrun. Not the video game but the pen and paper game.
Oh, I did, my Eberron Fan Boy-ness kicked in and I felt a need to correct lol :D :P
Anyways, I'm fine with people not liking Eberron, it just isn't everyone's cup of tea. Though I am interested to know why you don't like Eberron, it always interesting to hear non-belligerent people opine about that topic.
I never red Eberron setting, so I can not talk about it, but I don't like that strange creature in the cover ( a robot? naah!!!
).Instead Dragonlance have knights on it, and dragons. And for me, it means very much. A kind of fantasy that I like more.
This is not an Eberron-thread. Certainly we can discuss about differences of that setting and Dragonlance one.
I never red Eberron setting, so I can not talk about it, but I don't like that strange creature in the cover ( a robot? naah!!!
Instead Dragonlance have knights on it, and dragons. And for me, it means very much. A kind of fantasy that I like more.
Its not a Robot, its a Sentient Contstruct forged with metal and wood - it has a Soul. Warforged were created to supplement the dwindling supplies of Men during the last 100 year war. Following that war, Warforged were given all the rights of being a sentient species.
At any rate, could Warforged fit into DL? Its easy enough to add them to FR, it has mages and Gods who seem like they would make them but I don't know enough about DL to say the same.
Anyways, I have a question, if Changelings (from the MMIII and ECS) are indeed added to the PHB, would DL have trouble adding them to its setting? Do you think WotC will give them a large part in 4e DL or will they just be retconned to say that Changelings were always there and simply weren't mentioned prior to now. What about Tieflings?
Anyways, I have a question, if Changelings (from the MMIII and ECS) are indeed added to the PHB, would DL have trouble adding them to its setting? Do you think WotC will give them a large part in 4e DL or will they just be retconned to say that Changelings were always there and simply weren't mentioned prior to now. What about Tieflings?
Dragonlance hasn't been shy of excluding "core" options in the past (Orc, and thus Half-Orcs don't exist on Krynn), so I don't think DL 4e would be any different. There are no Doppelgangers or Lycanthropes on Krynn, so even if Changelings or Shifters made it into a Players Handbook they'd be a poor fit for Dragonlance. Not to mention that some of the thematic role of the Changeling is already covered by the Irda.
There are no Doppelgangers or Lycanthropes on Krynn
No lycanthropes, but there are doppelgangers. They're rumored to be related to Irda and ogres in general. I go into a lot of detail about which monsters do and don't exist in the DL setting in the Revised Bestiary of Krynn.
Cheers,
Cam
No lycanthropes, but there are doppelgangers. They're rumored to be related to Irda and ogres in general. I go into a lot of detail about which monsters do and don't exist in the DL setting in the Revised Bestiary of Krynn.
Interesting. Makes sense that they'd be some sort of High Ogre off-shoot. I'm still not sure that Krynn needs Changelings, I'd have to be convinced they didn't crowd the Irda's "turf".
Interesting. Makes sense that they'd be some sort of High Ogre off-shoot. I'm still not sure that Krynn needs Changelings, I'd have to be convinced they didn't crowd the Irda's "turf".
There is a half-ogre in DL!
One thing of note too, is quite a few aberrations are not native and bear the extraplanar subtype in Krynn. As a result they are also more rare. Beholders for example, if I recall correctly.
Interesting. Makes sense that they'd be some sort of High Ogre off-shoot. I'm still not sure that Krynn needs Changelings, I'd have to be convinced they didn't crowd the Irda's "turf".
Considering most of the Irda are dead, they don't have a lot of turf to claim.
One good option for using changelings in Dragonlance is for them to be the half-Irda, or humanoids with Irda blood but not trueborn. They get the shapeshifting and minor benefits but none of the real major spell-like abilities.
Cheers,
Cam
I dont think that Changelings or Warforged have any place in Dragonlance just like kender dont have a place in Eberreon. Keep what makes the worlds unique to each world.
So do you think we should take out death knights, skeletal warriors, and shadow dragons from Dragonlance? Because, you know. Those were Greyhawk monsters to begin with.
Cheers,
Cam
I dont think that Changelings or Warforged have any place in Dragonlance just like kender dont have a place in Eberreon. Keep what makes the worlds unique to each world.
I agree to a point, they should not be in the campaign setting under any circumstances and I think WOTC is not of the mindset to do that. However, the DnD universe is a vast one, and to completly exclude my players from chosing one of those races takes away from their enjoyment, but they MUST give me a logical reason for their character a race other than those typically found on Krynn.
So do you think we should take out death knights, skeletal warriors, and shadow dragons from Dragonlance?
AFAIK shadow dragons are few and far between compared to the chromatics and metallics (well, what their pre-dragon purge population was like anyway). And though my 5th age novel read is spotty, from what I have gleaned shadow dragons aren't really native to Krynn and neither Paladine nor Takhisis had a hand in their appearance.
Most of the Irda are dead?! There are survivors, after all?
As for warforged in Krynn, a little magical tampering with a gnomish invention…
So do you think we should take out death knights, skeletal warriors, and shadow dragons from Dragonlance? Because, you know. Those were Greyhawk monsters to begin with.
Cheers,
Cam
But Cam, arguably Dragonlance made death knights *famous*.
What can I say? I like Lord Soth. He made a decent villian.
But Cam, arguably Dragonlance made death knights *famous*.
What can I say? I like Lord Soth. He made a decent villian.
Lord Soth is to Death Knight as Drizzt Do'Urden is to Drow.
But Cam, arguably Dragonlance made death knights *famous*.
I completely agree.
So, what's preventing us from making, say, a Krynnish changeling the most famous?
Cheers,
Cam
hmmm kender mage of the red robes would be fun deeppockests anyone?
Lord Soth is to Death Knight as Drizzt Do'Urden is to Drow.
I would argue that Dalamar made an awesome "Dark Elf"....while not a Drow like Drizzt in game terms, the concept of Dark Elves being exiled members of the Elven community for practicing the black arts works so well in DL.
As for Soth, I think its clear that I like him!
Are you guys still going to publish the 3.5 adventure modules Dragons of Winter and Dragons of Spring or are those off the publication table with 4e?
This may have been asked already, but there are a lot of posts to go through...
Thanks.
Lord Soth is to Death Knight as Drizzt Do'Urden is to Drow.
Very true. And both death knights and drow originated in Greyhawk rather than the the setting their iconic character is from.
Cam has a point. Taking changelings out of their settings might have an iconic character to make them famous.
As for Soth, I think its clear that I like him!
I like him, too. I just don't like him crossing over to Ravenloft.
-- not a fan of crossover setting mix. No warforged in my DL.
Very true. And both death knights and drow originated in Greyhawk rather than the the setting their iconic character is from.
Cam has a point. Taking changelings out of their settings might have an iconic character to make them famous.
Okay then, what would happen if we changed the example? Would your opinion change?
What if someone wanted to include Drow into their DL campaign? Or Psionics? Or the Book of Nine Swords?
There are just a few things that just should not be in Dragonlance. To include certain things into Dragonlance would just not make it "Dragonlance" anymore.
Also:
Its not a Robot, its a Sentient Contstruct forged with metal and wood - it has a Soul. Warforged were created to supplement the dwindling supplies of Men during the last 100 year war. Following that war, Warforged were given all the rights of being a sentient species.
This I understand, as I own the Ebberon Campaign Setting book. However, this still makes him a "magic robot". I like the setting too (like, but don't love), but let's just be honest with ourselves.
Cam has a point. Taking changelings out of their settings might have an iconic character to make them famous.
Only this time, the Krynnish variety would have irda blood rather than doppelganger blood, right? Wouldn't purists nitpick that those can't be called changelings strictly speaking?
Only this time, the Krynnish variety would have irda blood rather than doppelganger blood, right? Wouldn't purists nitpick that those can't be called changelings strictly speaking?
Krynnish kobolds aren't descended from dragons, so there's no reason to think we can't monkey around with the origins and background of any other race.
Warforged would make excellent gnomish creations imbued with life by Reorx, perhaps the gnomoi of Taladas. You might only have a handful of them - perhaps a half dozen - but they could feature brass clockwork parts, hiss steam from their joints, and struggle to be recognized as individuals much as draconians have in recent novels. It wouldn't be hard at all to work them in.
But, as a major race on the same level as Eberron's warforged? Of course not. But it doesn't rule them out.
Cheers,
Cam
Okay then, what would happen if we changed the example? Would your opinion change?
What if someone wanted to include Drow into their DL campaign? Or Psionics? Or the Book of Nine Swords?
My thoughts on that:
Psionics used to be part of Dragonlance, if I remember correctly. (1st ed.)
"Dark" elves on Ansalon are exiled from their society. Maybe they are cursed as part of the ceremony that exiles them. The curse turns them into something that looks like drow. The truely evil ones are rewarded by the dark gods and gain the drow racial abilities, becoming full drow.
As far as Tome of Battle.... Hmm, selectively in certain societies. Maybe an import from Taladas? I do not know Tome of Battle or Taladas well enought to say.
To be honest, I am the *wrong* person to answer that question. I played back in 2nd edition with Planescape. While I never played it, I always wanted to play Spelljammer too. Setting crossovers don't bother me at all. In the games I played in crossovers were par for the course.
Heck, my DM imported irda from DL and the biological gear from the halflings in Dark Sun into his homebrow world. Then he made the biogear an irda specific invention that could only be applied to or by an irda. They were also very hesitant to share it outside of their own race and you had to have done a major service for them to get any of it.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Okay then, what would happen if we changed the example? Would your opinion change?
What if someone wanted to include Drow into their DL campaign? Or Psionics? Or the Book of Nine Swords?
There are just a few things that just should not be in Dragonlance. To include certain things into Dragonlance would just not make it "Dragonlance" anymore.
Also:
This I understand, as I own the Ebberon Campaign Setting book. However, this still makes him a "magic robot". I like the setting too (like, but don't love), but let's just be honest with ourselves.
To me, its a tad disingenuous for people to call Warforged Robots. My reasoning is that of you don't like Robots then you shouldn't use or allow Constructs in any way shape or form. After all Constructs are just semi-Autonomous, Soulless Robots crafted from various materials.
Cam -
Are you guys still going to publish the 3.5 adventure modules Dragons of Winter and Dragons of Spring or are those off the publication table with 4e?
ZZ
*cough* Uh, this is what you get when you leave a Reply post field open on your laptop, walk out of the room, and your 16 month old gets his hands on it.
Sorry, folks.
As to the question, yes, we plan on publishing those modules as our license doesn't expire until January 2008. As you can imagine, this nicely wraps things up for Dragonlance in 3.5.
Cheers,
Cam
ZZ
`+96
9
9
9
9
9
9
999
9
9999*
**9
`1 `` B B ````````````````````````````````LF;
3....
Yeah .... what Cam said .... I agree with it 100%!
ZZ
`+96
9
9
9
9
9
9
999
9
9999*
**9
`1 `` B B ````````````````````````````````LF;
3....
Wait... Is this a DL Inside Joke?
Wait... Is this a DL Inside Joke?
Fixed it.
Cheers,
Cam
ZZ
*cough* Uh, this is what you get when you leave a Reply post field open on your laptop, walk out of the room, and your 16 month old gets his hands on it.
Sorry, folks.
That is hilarious. :D (This coming from a father of four who knows precisely what 16 month olds can be like.)
ZZ
*cough* Uh, this is what you get when you leave a Reply post field open on your laptop, walk out of the room, and your 16 month old gets his hands on it.
Sorry, folks.
So now we have the true thoughts of Cam Banks ... interesting.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p1.html
What settings are slated for 4th Edition support? Specifically, will there be 4th Edition sourcebooks for Eberron, Forgotten Realms? Are you planning on bringing back any older settings such as Planescape or Ravenloft and are there any new settings in the works?
We will continue to support the Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings both in game product and with novel lines. The Forgotten Realms campaign setting will be the first one updated for 4th Edition in print, with a new campaign guide releasing in August 2008. Other classic campaign settings may be revisited in print product as demand warrants, but not as full-blown product lines. Most of the support for these less-popular campaign settings will occur on D&D Insider, in the form of articles, wikipedias, and the like.
Huh, so we were right, they'll use the D&D Insider to update older settings.
Huh, so we were right, they'll use the D&D Insider to update older settings.
They're using their subscription service to update old settings? Well, that sucks.
They better offer an alternative to credit card payment.
They're using their subscription service to update old settings? Well, that sucks.
They better offer an alternative to credit card payment.
Well you could always subscribe once every 6 Months and get all the info you need, I suppose. :raincloud
That would be alright as long as MWP gets it back.
Tracy Hickman. :P
Only time will tell.....
I think they pulled back the licence so that when 4E comes out, whoever licences it will be forced to support the 4E system and not the 3E or 3.5 versions. If they left it the MWP then they could have continued to support the 3E or 3.5 version and ignored the 4E system. This way they must if they wish to continue producing dragonlance products. A very shrewed move on their behalf, whether WE like it or not.I don't believe they are planning on selling D&D. Where did that rumor ever come from anyway?
They've already said the 3.0/3.5 OGL will remain open and that the 4E will have an OGL, it's just the name and settings that are being recalled. And that "rumor" was just me voicing an opinion (that whole "GUESS" word implied that, or so I thought). If you look at corporate america, when you get ready to sell something (like a company or product line) you have to pull everything back in before you can put it out there for sale, a tsunami is a good analogy, lol. I am simply making (I'll use it again) a GUESS that is on the horizon.
Also, sorry about missing the "Guess". I have seen others also mention the possibilbity of WOTC selling off D&D, so I thought maybe there was some specific source for the info. Again, sorry if I misquotted you. Not my intention of being insulting, although I can see how you might get my comments being that way.
I don't believe they are planning on selling D&D. Where did that rumor ever come from anyway?
Then it was a poorly written license for WotC not to have a say when it comes to edition transition.
Then again, MWP/Sovereign Press could have been more willing to embrace the new edition if WotC would "ask" them, even though it was not stipulated in the license.
Then it was a poorly written license for WotC not to have a say when it comes to edition transition.
Then again, MWP/Sovereign Press could have been more willing to embrace the new edition if WotC would "ask" them, even though it was not stipulated in the license.
The DL licence expired.
It is my understanding that SP/MWP wanted to renew the Dragonlance licence, but that WotC wouldn't let them.
(Although WotC did extend the DL licence enough to allow all the partially completed SP/MWP books to get printed and sold.)
There have been a lot of angry Dragonlance fans ranting about WotC, so if they intended to give MWP a new 4th edtion DL licence, it would make sense for them to announce it on the heels of the 4th edition D&D statement.
Which is too bad in some ways. The folks over at Margaret Weis Productions/Sovereign Press did a very good job with 3.0/3.5 Dragonlance. You remember Margaret Weis? The co-author of the original DL setting? Since the current stuff still has her stamp of approval, it still has the classic DL feel, despite the changes over the years. The continuity still follows(ed) the WotC DL novels.
I'm not sure that WotC needed to take DL back. Ravenloft? Sure. But Dragonlance? Not so much.
They could really, really, really do with some budget over there though. The art is bad. The material is pretty good.. but I always feel a little dirty playing in Dragonlance (which I love, mind you) because the canon is SO STRONG. And my players know the canon and they throw little fits when I change something.. and I throw little fits when I change something and frankly, the whole damn thing just feels too pristine for me to play. That and I'm a sucker for pretty pictures.
On top of that the later DL stuff, as in penned by Weiss and Hickman, just hasn't grabbed me the same way the Chronicles did and what makes the Legends series great are not things that make your average adventuring party tick. Of course, I was 10 when I was reading the Chronicles..
Anyway, it'll probably just be a DL core from WotC and then updates from Sovereign Press putting it out again.
Bring back Dark Sun!! ;)
but I always feel a little dirty playing in Dragonlance (which I love, mind you) because the canon is SO STRONG.
It is as strong as you want it to be.
Has there ever been any Tanar'ri invasion in DL? In a campaign of mine, there was.
Who were the Heroes of the Lance? When I DMed the Classics, they were not Raistlin, Caramon... etc., but our own characters.
The important thing is having fun, it is not following some books to the letter... ;)
Anyway, it'll probably just be a DL core from WotC and then updates from Sovereign Press putting it out again.
I do hope so... but after seeing that interview and the support on the Insider...
Bring back Dark Sun!! ;)
And Planescape also!!!
..Unless Greyhawk beats it to it, and we have to wait until 2011…
What I really want is Al-Qadim!
Maybe as they are releasing a campaign setting every year (2208 = FR, 2009 = Eberron), maybe Dragonlance could come down the pike in 2010?
..Unless Greyhawk beats it to it, and we have to wait until 2011…
What I really want is Al-Qadim!
Sadly I found this interview and posted it here a while ago, I'll do it again for everyone who missed it.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p1.html
They could really, really, really do with some budget over there though. The art is bad. The material is pretty good.. but I always feel a little dirty playing in Dragonlance (which I love, mind you) because the canon is SO STRONG.
Why? Do you need permission from Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, and/or Dragonhelm to play Dragonlance the way YOU want to play?
Why? Do you need permission from Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, and/or Dragonhelm to play Dragonlance the way YOU want to play?
I dunno about him, but it's not that I need permission so much as I feel like I'm disturbing the sanctity of the setting. Dragonlance is the only setting that's given me that feeling. I can't say exactly why.
They could really, really, really do with some budget over there though. The art is bad.
I'll disagree with this point, at least with two exceptional artists - Jason Engle and Jennifer Meyer. I think they produce stuff as good, if not better, than what we see with WotC's artists.
The material is pretty good.. but I always feel a little dirty playing in Dragonlance (which I love, mind you) because the canon is SO STRONG. And my players know the canon and they throw little fits when I change something.. and I throw little fits when I change something and frankly, the whole damn thing just feels too pristine for me to play. That and I'm a sucker for pretty pictures.
I once felt much the same with Star Wars. To this day, I prefer any era over the classic trilogy era just because of the canon of the movies.
What I would recommend would be to check out one of the alternate timelines in Legends of the Twins. They have different canons than the mainstream timeline (meaning your players may not be familiar with them), and you can expand on them to your heart's desire without worrying about the growing and evolving canon in the novels.
On top of that the later DL stuff, as in penned by Weiss and Hickman, just hasn't grabbed me the same way the Chronicles did and what makes the Legends series great are not things that make your average adventuring party tick. Of course, I was 10 when I was reading the Chronicles..
War of the Lance is, IMO, the greatest DL gaming book ever. It has tons of great ideas on how to approach a WotL-era game.
Why? Do you need permission from Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, and/or Dragonhelm to play Dragonlance the way YOU want to play?
I'm all for people playing the way they want. Canon, non-canon, it doesn't matter to me. If psionic orc were-drow are in your DL game, that's fine! Just play some Dragonlance and have fun. ;)
I know I'll be running post-War of Souls Krynn in a very PoL manner come 4e -- I hope WotC helps! :D
I dunno about him, but it's not that I need permission so much as I feel like I'm disturbing the sanctity of the setting. Dragonlance is the only setting that's given me that feeling. I can't say exactly why.
"Sanctity"???
It's a game world, not a marriage.
"Sanctity"???
It's a game world, not a marriage.
Yes, "sanctity" - which is a term that can be applied to many things that are holy, not just marriage. Dragonlance, as a setting, has an almost holy aura that makes it seem untouchable to me.
Yes, "sanctity" - which is a term that can be applied to many things that are holy, not just marriage. Dragonlance, as a setting, has an almost holy aura that makes it seem untouchable to me.
Then the fault is either the player or the publisher.
If you feel like can't do anything in that setting for fear of disturbing its "sacred aura," then the setting is not for you.
You could fault the publisher for making it seem that way, what with the series of novel that are made canon to the setting's history. Maybe it should not have been a game setting in the first place. Just a franchise.
But then why do we have Star Wars RPG, a franchise-based game?
Sighs.
Do you really feel the need to have permission from WotC to do anything you want with Dragonlance?
Then the fault is either the player or the publisher.
If you feel like can't do anything in that setting for fear of disturbing its "sacred aura," then the setting is not for you.
You could fault the publisher for making it seem that way, what with the series of novel that are made canon to the setting's history. Maybe it should not have been a game setting in the first place. Just a franchise.
But then why do we have Star Wars RPG, a franchise-based game?
Sighs.
Do you really feel the need to have permission from WotC to do anything you want with Dragonlance?
Some people have no imagination I guess. I have no idea why some people feel as he does, it makes no friggin sense.
Why have you no problem setting adventures and making modifications to the underdark? Because you don't have (I think) a more or less detailed story of everything that has happened ther in the last 5000 years, and you don't have fifteen triologies explaining what has happened in a certain city.
Many of the DragonLance books are books writing story. Taladas Triology. Ergoth Triology. Chronicles. To say just a few.
I'd say that the fact that (i.e.) the Wizard's Conclave novel explains not Coryn's story but the recovery of Wyareth through the eyes of Coryn makes it more difficult to change such an event because then you are not only affecting Coryn but all the wizards.
That's why I ask for stories about people (indeed there are in DragonLance, too, of these), stories that do not impact the world and have the echo (among readers, not in the gaming world) that the far reaching, world stories have.
Then the fault is either the player or the publisher.
I'm not blaming anyone. It simply is what it is.
If you feel like can't do anything in that setting for fear of disturbing its "sacred aura," then the setting is not for you.
For playing in, it isn't for me. But I enjoy the setting nonetheless. And harvest the game material for use elsewhere. I'm not saying it should be changed.
Do you really feel the need to have permission from WotC to do anything you want with Dragonlance?
Didn't I just say permission was immaterial? There is no permission in this world or the next that would make it feel right for me to violate the setting by playing in it. It is 'holy ground' of sorts. A place where wonderful characters and stories live wherein I do not wish to place my own muddy footprints.
Some people have no imagination I guess.
That's utter nonsense and I'm going to resist the temptation to turn the statement around on you. Suffice to say that imagination has nothing to do with it.
That's utter nonsense and I'm going to resist the temptation to turn the statement around on you. Suffice to say that imagination has nothing to do with it.
It has a great deal to do with it. Holy ground? What kind of nonsense is that? Seems like a lack of imagination to me. "Gee I can't think of anything better and I don't want to screw with it or make it different."
That sounds a lot to me like a lack of imagination.
It has a great deal to do with it. Holy ground? What kind of nonsense is that? Seems like a lack of imagination to me. "Gee I can't think of anything better and I don't want to screw with it or make it different."
That sounds a lot to me like a lack of imagination.
It's not though. I felt the same way. Dragonlance seemed fun to read about but not to play in. Star Wars is the same way for me. I played in it, and it just doesn't work for me. I love all the entertainment forms of it, I just do not like gaming there.
I feel like SW and the Lance are two settings where the main characters were so Icionic and the MAIN storylines were so Epic that it makes many gamers not want to touch the world.
I have talked to people about this and this is the impression that I got.
It's not though. I felt the same way. Dragonlance seemed fun to read about but not to play in. Star Wars is the same way for me. I played in it, and it just doesn't work for me. I love all the entertainment forms of it, I just do not like gaming there.
I feel like SW and the Lance are two settings where the main characters were so Icionic and the MAIN storylines were so Epic that it makes many gamers not want to touch the world.
I have talked to people about this and this is the impression that I got.
But see I think that opens it up to a thousand different "What if?" Possibilities.
How cool would it be if you had to face down Darth Vader in Star Wars, or fight Takhisis on Krynn?
I see an infinite number of options where some people seem to see nothing. Hense, the lack of imagination.
That's just (IMHO) how I see it.
It has a great deal to do with it. Holy ground? What kind of nonsense is that? Seems like a lack of imagination to me. "Gee I can't think of anything better and I don't want to screw with it or make it different."
That sounds a lot to me like a lack of imagination.
It is not an "I can't think of anything better", it is more a "I feel like I don't want to change a thing". It may be due to the reasons I explained before, it may be due to Rauric's. I don't know. But many people feel that they do not want to change DL's storyline.
It is not lack of imagination, it is lack of will of change.
It is not an "I can't think of anything better", it is more a "I feel like I don't want to change a thing". It may be due to the reasons I explained before, it may be due to Rauric's. I don't know. But many people feel that they do not want to change DL's storyline.
It is not lack of imagination, it is lack of will of change.
If you say so, that's just not what I see.
1) I have no urge to run or play in this world. Weird, but that is basically it. It feels "finished" to me. Maybe it was Hickman's "Age of Man" stuff at the end of the last book, Summer Flame.
2) Nobody I know wants to play in it. Even the diehard fanboys of the novels. They would rather play FR or Eberron. Nobody I have talked to thinks DL is a good setting to play in anymore.
These are my issues.
It has a great deal to do with it. Holy ground? What kind of nonsense is that?
Holy ground. Off-limits. Verboten. Like talking out of turn in church or kicking a wheelchair-bound kitten. Such feelings have nothing to do with a lack of imagination. If nothing is sacred to you, you probably can't understand.
Seems like a lack of imagination to me. "Gee I can't think of anything better and I don't want to screw with it or make it different."
That sounds a lot to me like a lack of imagination.
Nah, a lack of imagination would necessitate using a pre-constructed setting. What, can't think of your own?
I guess I could only resist for so long, after all. It's an absurd notion, of course, as is the reverse. I've played in other settings with no problem - Star Wars is one of my favourites. And as a DM I construct my own world for just about every single campaign. Imagination is not the problem - I *could* change it, but it doesn't feel right to do so.
I'm kinda stunned by those statements. I feel the completely opposite. I think part of the issue is that players don't feel that the dragonlance setting is "their's." If you think about it, there's "canon" it's unchangable laws of "this is reality" that can't be broken. Sturm died. Tanis half-elven got the girl. Raistlin almost became a god. because of those great story events, I think fans can't break out on their own. Dragonhelm, I think its exactly like the Starwars reference you made. Han and Leia fall in love. Luke and leia are siblings. it's written in stone. you can play it different.
bleah. I think that's bunk. I've found more than enough variations on canon, and inconsistencies and adventure material to make all sorts of adventures in dragonlance. heck, I've taken a lot of real-world events and made them into krynn specific events. Baseball doping scandal? I can throw it into dragonlance. Solamnics discover knights using magical spells to augment their horses in the last annual jousting contest. Barry uth Bonds is suspected to augmenting his horse. can the adventurers discover evidence before the end of the next tournament? :D The housing prices in america? Well, in Solace it's even crazier because tree don't grow at lightning speed, and everyone wants a fancy house in a fancy tree. Toede is Flotsam has a zoo, and two Irda are being treated like Chinese pandas. Someone's been scaring the chambermaids of Solace. the mayor needs someone to clean the chamberpots in solace, or figure out what's scaring the maids.
A gnome is building a train railway through the valley. do you stop it, or do you help the gnomes kill off buffalo that stand on the railroad? Draconians have a new nation of Teyr? I can generate all sorts of adventures based on political intrigue, assassination, and dungeon crawling.
The adventures are there.
Weldon
I am sure I could think of tons of things to do with the setting. I have two problems:
1) I have no urge to run or play in this world. Weird, but that is basically it. It feels "finished" to me. Maybe it was Hickman's "Age of Man" stuff at the end of the last book, Summer Flame.
2) Nobody I know wants to play in it. Even the diehard fanboys of the novels. They would rather play FR or Eberron. Nobody I have talked to thinks DL is a good setting to play in anymore.
These are my issues.
I am sure I could think of tons of things to do with the setting. I have two problems:
1) I have no urge to run or play in this world. Weird, but that is basically it. It feels "finished" to me. Maybe it was Hickman's "Age of Man" stuff at the end of the last book, Summer Flame.
2) Nobody I know wants to play in it. Even the diehard fanboys of the novels. They would rather play FR or Eberron. Nobody I have talked to thinks DL is a good setting to play in anymore.
These are my issues.
That's too bad, I think you are missing out.
Holy ground. Off-limits. Verboten. Like talking out of turn in church or kicking a wheelchair-bound kitten. Such feelings have nothing to do with a lack of imagination. If nothing is sacred to you, you probably can't understand.
I understand what holy ground means, the fact you are relating it to Dragonlance (IMHO) makes absolutley no sense, especially when you will use a setting like Star Wars which is even more Canonized.
Nah, a lack of imagination would necessitate using a pre-constructed setting. What, can't think of your own?
Of course I can, I've developed 4 different D&D settings in my 12 years of playing. But that still doesn't mean I cannot come up with 20 different DL scenarios or 40 FR ones for example.
I guess I could only resist for so long, after all. It's an absurd notion, of course, as is the reverse. I've played in other settings with no problem - Star Wars is one of my favourites. And as a DM I construct my own world for just about every single campaign. Imagination is not the problem - I *could* change it, but it doesn't feel right to do so.
I suppose maybe you can look at it that way, I just think it doesn't seem that way. It's like saying, "well it's been done this way and I don't think I could do it better so screw it."
I understand what holy ground means, the fact you are relating it to Dragonlance (IMHO) makes absolutley no sense, especially when you will use a setting like Star Wars which is even more Canonized.
And Star Wars canon doesn't give me that feeling. I don't mind mucking with Luke and Vader any more than I mind mucking with the Council of Eight or routinely killing Drizz't off. I've blown up Myth Drannor and become a Lord of Ravenloft. Just because I feel that way about one setting doesn't mean the others are capable of invoking that feeling.
Of course I can, I've developed 4 different D&D settings in my 12 years of playing. But that still doesn't mean I cannot come up with 20 different DL scenarios or 40 FR ones for example.
Of course you have. I wasn't seriously making an asinine and insulting claim, which is why I noted shortly thereafter that it was an absurd notion.
(Twice as many FR scenarios, eh? So you feel less constrained making FR scenarios than DL ones. Freud has ratted you out. ;) )
I suppose maybe you can look at it that way, I just think it doesn't seem that way. It's like saying, "well it's been done this way and I don't think I could do it better so screw it."
Except that you're the only one saying that. I'd say there's a good chance that I could do it just as good if not better in my own way - but if I did it better, the original might lose its lustre for me. It's not a matter of capability for me, or laziness, or lack of imagination. As I've said, it's simply a matter of it not feeling right to campaign there. It's a plain and simple sentiment without any ulterior motives behind it.
And Star Wars canon doesn't give me that feeling. I don't mind mucking with Luke and Vader any more than I mind mucking with the Council of Eight or routinely killing Drizz't off. I've blown up Myth Drannor and become a Lord of Ravenloft. Just because I feel that way about one setting doesn't mean the others are capable of invoking that feeling.
That's fine, I just don't get it.
Of course you have. I wasn't seriously making an asinine and insulting claim, which is why I noted shortly thereafter that it was an absurd notion.
(Twice as many FR scenarios, eh? So you feel less constrained making FR scenarios than DL ones. Freud has ratted you out. ;) )
Don't get me wrong, I like Dragonlance, but I like the Realms more, hense the more ideas for it. Too be honest, I don't DM Dragonlance. Not because I can't, I've just been concentrated in other areas. I've been considering a DL game for a long time now...
Except that you're the only one saying that. I'd say there's a good chance that I could do it just as good if not better in my own way - but if I did it better, the original might lose its lustre for me. It's not a matter of capability for me, or laziness, or lack of imagination. As I've said, it's simply a matter of it not feeling right to campaign there. It's a plain and simple sentiment without any ulterior motives behind it.
ok.
Don't get me wrong, I like Dragonlance
And just so everyone is clear on it, I
love Dragonlance. Perhaps too much. I made a fool of myself getting my copy of DLCS signed by Margaret Weis, and I'm not the sort to go gaga over celebrities. My inability to play or DM there is in no way intended as a slight against it. Save the torches and pitchforks for the next Best-Left-Forgotten Realms thread I meander into. ;)If you want your books signed order them from Sovereign Press. They are more expensive than most large online stores such as amazon and the like but almost all the books are signed by Margaret. Those that Cam wrote are also signed by him.
That's too impersonal. I got mine signed with a special apology.
Dragonlance hasn't been shy of excluding "core" options in the past (Orc, and thus Half-Orcs don't exist on Krynn), so I don't think DL 4e would be any different.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. In the DLCS, one npc is stated as a half-orc. Its a female, I think. I don't know if it was a typo or what. The entry is in the section on places where city npcs are listed. Don't know page number, don't have book anymore. I could probably find out pretty easily though.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. In the DLCS, one npc is stated as a half-orc. Its a female, I think. I don't know if it was a typo or what. The entry is in the section on places where city npcs are listed. Don't know page number, don't have book anymore. I could probably find out pretty easily though.
Right. She's not a half-orc, she's a half-ogre.
Cheers,
Cam