Anyway, it just eats at me that people prefer the War of the Lance era where everything is predictated for them. The oiginal DL 1 - 14 uses pre-generated characters, not to mention the novels on top of that. There is nothing for original PC's to do without making major changes to the setting, and if you're going to do that, you may as well play homebrew. Some prefer to play in past Ages, while that can be fun and interesting without arguement, anything notable for characters to do has already been done as well.
Still, others I have noticed on various forums opt to change the War of the Lance so that Takhisis wins thus going for a "darker, edgier" DL. This one changes the setting moreso than any of the others and makes any products released based on something after the WoL practically useless. One would have to homebrew every single thing.
Now, the 5th. Age as it stands will allow for DM's and players alike to create their own stories without the novels paving the way and holding their hands. The new adventures I believe even have this very thing in mind. Is the nostalgia for the 4th. Age really that much? Are people still bitter about "T$R" making SAGA and "ruining" the setting? 'Eh..well..they can keep their static, unchanging setting and I'll shape stories with characters I created myself in the Age of Mortals.
Somewhat rantish, I know. But, I'd still like to hear what others think on the topic. And, no, I'm not asking for my opinion to be picked a part, I'm asking for your own.:D
Originally posted by Nevine
I wanted to hear some opinions (and express my own) on why some people still insist on not accepting the 5th. Age (not saying they have to play in it, but accepting it's just the way things are).
In my case its because I feel that the 5th age spoilt Dragonlance, at least for me. Following Dragons of a Summer Flame it wasn't the same setting I loved when I read the Chronicles and the Legends.
I feel that post the Blue Lady's War the setting was left open for DM's to run what they wanted. It was a time for heroes. The 5th age just feels like someone let the whole setting go to hell.
Anyway, it just eats at me that people prefer the War of the Lance era where everything is predictated for them. The oiginal DL 1 - 14 uses pre-generated characters, not to mention the novels on top of that. There is nothing for original PC's to do without making major changes to the setting, and if you're going to do that, you may as well play homebrew.
Only if thats the era that you use. As I said above, the post Blue Lady's War was ripe for being left open. It didn't need the 5th age in any shape or form.
Now, the 5th. Age as it stands will allow for DM's and players alike to create their own stories without the novels paving the way and holding their hands.
I think you are very wrong here. So much has been written for the 5th age and it covers such a massive space of time that I can't see how you can really run anything that puts your characters in the centre of the it all without changing a lot of detail.
Is the nostalgia for the 4th. Age really that much?
Are people still bitter about "T$R" making SAGA and "ruining" the setting?
Nostalgia? Yes. Pretty much. But its not just that.
As for SAGA, no, not at all. That system, turned me off not just the change to 5th age.
Even if you hate the 5th Age and just want to play 4th Age, then there's no problem. Continuity problems? Who cares? So what if your characters played in the War of the Lance and lost. Didn't care for the Chaos War? Let it never have happened. The fact that you're even playing in a Dragonlance campaign makes it homebrew. The Dragonlance Campaign just provides us all with a base, one that we can change if we so desire.
5'th age during and after the WOS is just fine though, I enjoy reading it and I may run a campaign set during that period at some point.
The SAGA system has no imnpact on my opinion of the 5'th age, I didnt use the system myself but I was rather interesting and an innovative way to push DragonLance.
My favourite era to play in is post- WoTL around the time period in which the Knights of Takhisis
I don't feel anything is forced upon me in said era... the world can go in any way I want.
The DLCS, AOM and all other books are merely suggestions on how you should set things.
In the end it's up to your own individual preferences as a DM.
If I and my players don't like something that's DragonLance canon then it doesnt happen in our game... simple as that.
Sure it changes the world slightly, but what's the point of playing if your forever afraid to make any changes that impact the world beyond what happens in the novels?
My preferred era has nothing to do with nostalgia, I simply feel my chosen era is that perfect point in time to allow my campaign world of DragonLance to advance in any manner I want, or the players want.
Then again, I was reasonably certain I wouldn't be seeing Tasselhoff and Raistlin again in the 5th age pre-WoS... so, who knows...
This is because we're now forced to explain why sorcery and mysticism are a LOT more powerful than they were before. From a strict comparison of effects most sorcerous or mystic powers rarely emulated any spell above 5th level (by d20 standards).
Additionally, sorcery could only affect non-living matter, and mysticism could only effect things endowed with life (or unlife in many cases).
Continuity breach is, as always, a major problem.
Then again, we're most here because I think that consensus was pretty much reached that SAGA sucked and we wanted Dragonlance back in the D&D system.
Plus we wanted the gods back. They're too much a part of the flavor of Krynn to just write them out. Along with the Orders of High Sorcery and other neat bits.
Now we've got the juicy bits back but we have to clean out the dross. This may require a bit of work...
Originally posted by Psionycx
I have to say that I do find the continuing presence of sorcery and mysticism a bit problematic, especially now that we're off of those hateful SAGA rules.
This is because we're now forced to explain why sorcery and mysticism are a LOT more powerful than they were before. From a strict comparison of effects most sorcerous or mystic powers rarely emulated any spell above 5th level (by d20 standards).
Easy. As the Age of Mortals book reveals, sorcery and mysticism were hampered by being drained by the souls of those who had died and were unable to leave Krynn. These two kinds of magic have only now come into their own as potent sources of spellcasting. In addition, their limitations appear to have been much less strict than was initially thought as regards living and non-living effects. Even before the War of Souls, students of ambient magic had begun to explore the true extent of those restrictions.
Cheers,
Cam
Didn't care for the Chaos War? Let it never have happened.
Thats exactly what I'm doing. Some other event will take place that replaces it.
It gives me a chance to use some 5th age/AoM events, PrC's and characters while still sticking to the post WotL era that I like.
Matthew L. Martin, who was brought _back_ to DL by the Fifth Age.
During the Chaos War both good, neutrality and evil have to band together to save Krynn, it becomes more than just 'my god is evil so I must smite thee' scenario. Having Knights of Tahkisis and Knights of Solamnia fighting side by side is such a great character development and lots of fun too.
I think that most of the problems with the Chaos War was the actual aftermath of the War rather than the Chaos War itself. I think the Gods leaving Krynn is what really turned away most of the players.
I think that all the Dragonlance eras of play have something to offer. And within those eras players (and GMs) will find one that suits their own niche. That's one of the things I love about the Dragonlance settings, that they all have their own feel and still retain their epic scope -a thing that settings like the Forgotten Realms lacks (in my opinion).
Just my two steel florints worth
Arandur
a) Because too freakin much has happened. Too many epic wars in such a short span of time.
b)To the people that hate seeing Raistlin and Tas still around, bite me. :D LOL. They are the only reasons I would read the new stuff.
c) The offspring of the companions were boring.
d) 'Killing' off of 2 main gods?!?!? Ugh!
e) Alien dragons?!!? If I wanted aliens I would be a star trek geek.
None of my gaming group has a problem playing the DL modules like the books. In fact they would have it no other way. Sturm will die when he is supposed to die. Raistlin will take the black robes. I will use the obscure death rule to keep the characters alive that need be alive.
You know the best thing about all of this. I can choose to hate the 5th age (I don't really hate it) and you can choose to dislike the 4th age, and we will still live. These are worlds of our making, if we so choose.
I will eventually play some in the 5th age, maybe by means of a time travel spell. Also I would like to play through this mega-adventure.
Originally posted by themeecer
Why do I dislike the 5th age?
a) Because too freakin much has happened. Too many epic wars in such a short span of time.
Thats part of it. The world changed too much too quickly. It became a different world to the one that brought me into D&D in the first place.
My players were initially drawn in by the novels and wanted to play in a world were that had/was happening.
I take umbrage at anyone suggesting my campaign, which has lasted 13 years in real time, is somehow hidebound, inferior, lacking in originality and/or scope.
Get off your high horse and see with a good gamesmaster, players and a strong idea that any time in the DL millieu is a vibrant time for play.
Your point seems to be that unless you are fully up to date you are basically missing out when in fact you exhibit the same lack of originality accused of in 4th age fans in slavishly following the timeline into the 4th Age. The only actual difference is when you dated the start of your campaign. Plenty can happen during the time of the novels, they are springboards to high adventure. Claiming that nothing can happen exhibits a lack of ingenuity on your part, not on those who still cherish adventure in the 4th Age. There are similarly plenty of oppurtunities in the 5th Age...
My players read Chronicles and Legends, but have drifted away from what we have considered to be inferior succeding books. Whether this decline in quality is true or not is completely a moot point here - my players grew up in a world that was different from what new players experience now. There is nothing to objectively decide between them and so we are left with mere preferences.
Some like the new, some like the old. Deal with it.
I possess most of the SAGA Dragonlance books, and have DLCS and Age Of Mortals pre-ordered.
I take constant joy from the creative energy being poured into DL by like minded people all around the world. Any genuinely interesting idea in any of the sourcebooks can be re-crafted for any time period.
Daralathas Talurien, Knight Prefect Of E'Li, House Cleric
Sothi Nuinqua Tsalarioth
In my years online, the "4th age vs. 5th age" argument has come up time and again. There are many reasons for people to like the various eras of play. I think we've seen many argument for both sides, so I'll endeavor not to repeat what has already been said.
Personally, I like to think of Dragonlance in terms of "Eras of Play", rather than in "Ages". Let's take Star Wars for example. There are several eras that one can play in.
1. Tales of the Jedi (roughly 4,000 years prior to the movies)
2. Old Republic (detailing the fall of the Old Republic).
3. Rebellion (original movie trilogy era)
4. New Republic (between the movies and the New Jedi Order)
5. New Jedi Order (sort of a "next generation" look at Star Wars, with the battle against the Yuuzhan Vong (sp?) )
Saying that one is a Fourth Age fan is a bit inaccurate, as the Fourth Age includes the Cataclysm, the Time of Darkness, the War of the Lance, and the Chaos War.
Saying that one is a Fifth Age fan is also a bit inaccurate, as you have the reign of the dragon overlords, the War of Souls, and the current era of play.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have several eras that I like to play in. I can't narrow it down to just the War of the Lance, or just the War of Souls, or the time of Huma, or the Cataclysm, etc. etc.
I don't consider myself a 4th age fan, or a 5th age fan. I consider myself to be a Dragonlance fan, who has several eras of play that I love.
Anyway, that's my two steel.
>Fourth Age includes the Cataclysm, the Time of Darkness, the
>War of the Lance, and the Chaos War.
>Saying that one is a Fifth Age fan is also a bit inaccurate, as you >have the reign of the dragon overlords, the War of Souls, and
>the current era of play.
I disagree - saying you are a 4th age or 5th Age Champion is fully accurate when it indicates what you think is the last age which actually encompasses that nebulous Krynnish feel.
The 4th Agers tend to allow for all the novels (to a greater and lesser extent) upto Summer Flame (again to a greater or lesser extent). The 5th Agers take the entire novelisation line (to a greater or lesser extent).
So the 4th Age / 5th Age split comes at the climax of Summer Flame. Some feel the world ended there as a vital roleplaying world, others carry the torch on.
Daralathas Talurien, Knight Prefect Of E'Li, House Cleric
Sothi Nuinqua Tsalarioth
Originally posted by artaxerxes
Get off your high horse and see with a good gamesmaster, players and a strong idea that any time in the DL millieu is a vibrant time for play.
I'll assume you are speaking to me. First off, I figured it was a horrible idea to post on these boards as it doesn't seem most (most, not all of you) are capable of accepting someone has opinions different from their own without getting defensive and insulting. High horse? Please. I never said you just HAD to play an Age of Mortals campaign. I was asking for other people's opinions on the matters and I expressed my own. Just because you don't like it, does not mean you are required to be a jerk.
See why I said not to pick my post apart? It is you who have gotten on a high horse and are acting high and mighty.
Originally posted by artaxerxes
Your point seems to be that unless you are fully up to date you are basically missing out when in fact you exhibit the same lack of originality accused of in 4th age fans in slavishly following the timeline into the 4th Age.
See...you're assuming again. Give your own opinion and not what you think you know about mine. I'll state again, I said at the very beginning I didn't think anyone had to play a certain way. I didn't say I didn't like the 4th. Age or that it (or people who play in it) was unoriginal. Yes, I have a problem with people who don't consider the current Age (era..whatever) to be "Dragonlance". But, it's just my opinion, and I'm not going to sit around tell each one of them off. Maybe your post (and anyone elses who refered to me directly) would have better served informing me why you like your favored era and not others.
I never intended to reply and critique what anyone had to say.
Originally posted by artaxerxes
Some like the new, some like the old. Deal with it.
Yes, I'm sorry. What was I thinking?
Nevine,
who knows not to try to have discussions on the Wizard.com forum gaming areas anymore
Originally posted by artaxerxes
I disagree - saying you are a 4th age or 5th Age Champion is fully accurate when it indicates what you think is the last age which actually encompasses that nebulous Krynnish feel.
I guess that makes me a 2nd age fan. ;)
What this is saying is a preference. We understand that a "4th age fan" prefers the War of the Lance. "Fifth age fans" tend to prefer the pre-War of Souls Age of Mortals, although again this leaves us with a lack of terminology for those who enjoy the War of Souls and beyond.
What of those who like multiple eras? For example, I enjoy the Third Dragonwar, the War of the Lance, the Chaos War, and the War of Souls. Does that make me a 2nd age, 4th age, or 5th age fan?
I just don't get why people can't be "Dragonlance fans", each with their own preferences on the era they wish to play, rather than dividing the fan base into two divisions that are not accurate by any means, especially as the timeline progresses.
The 4th Agers tend to allow for all the novels (to a greater and lesser extent) upto Summer Flame (again to a greater or lesser extent).
That's not entirely true. I've known a number of people who don't like anything beyond Legends.
This is why I prefer looking at Dragonlance in terms of "eras of play".
The 5th Agers take the entire novelisation line (to a greater or lesser extent).
Perhaps more accurate, but not a rule by any means. I've known "5th Agers" who prefer to stick to just the pre-War of Souls era, who don't want to see the world change with War of Souls. This is similar to how some "4th Agers" don't want the world to change after Summer Flame.
So the 4th Age / 5th Age split comes at the climax of Summer Flame. Some feel the world ended there as a vital roleplaying world, others carry the torch on.
The split is not only Summer Flame, but also the change in game systems to SAGA. Had just the world changed, or just the game system, I think we would have had less of a fan split, IMHO.
As I look upon Dragonlance, I see a setting where there has been division for so long, that we have forgotten how to be just "Dragonlance fans". Threads like this pop up once in a while, and both sides feel that they must be "champions" for their cause.
Honestly, what is done is done, whether for good or for ill. We can either sit here, placing blame on books, authors, game designers, or TSR management.
Or, we can move on, and try to come together as a community of fans. Sure, you may not like the same time period that I do, and I may not like the same as the next guy, but that's okay.
What matters is that Dragonlance is back, and Sovereign Press is giving us the tools we need in order to play in any era. So if you like the War of the Lance, go for it. If you prefer the Chaos War, early 5th age, an alternate timeline, or an all-kender treasure hunt - go for it.
Long Live the Lance!
Dragonlance is very different to FR or other published worlds because of its depth and detail, and thats also its problem I think.
My two steel worth
However on re-reading you initial post I discovered I was entirely justified.
"...I wanted to hear some opinions (and express my own) on why some people still insist on not accepting the 5th. Age (not saying they have to play in it, but accepting it's just the way things are). And I apologize if this topic has been done before.. C'est la vie.
Anyway, it just eats at me that people prefer the War of the Lance era where everything is predictated [sic] for them."
To me 'insist on not accepting' & 'just the way things are' imply that any other stance is erroneous, or willfully ignorant.
Further 'it just eats me' suggests you brought your angst to the table and so were chomping at the bit to react, as you did, to my response.
I, myself, take joy that others see DL in a multitude of ways, as often they have an insight that I failed to notice. However I don't appreciate being told how to enjoy Dragonlance correctly.
I suspect niether would you.
Daralathas Talurien, Knight Prefect Of E'Li, House Cleric
Sothi Nuinqua Tsalarioth
Doesn't matter, it's all good. *stabs holes in thread and lets it sinks into the depths that is Prune*
In Krynn we had the War of the Lance, the Chaoswar and then the War of Souls. The last century has had more earthshaking events than the rest of history together. Too much and too epic has already passed. (Especially as the meta-physical shape of the world and rules of magic have been rewritten multiple times in this time span.)
It's a bit as if Lord of the Rings, The Belgariad and the Shannara series were all set in the same world and within 100 years total. (With their relative literary merit included.)
Sensory overload, system shutting down.
Personally, I'd take Krynn's changes over Toril's sameness any day... but that's where DMs come in. I dislike FR, but a decent (IMO) DM can make it enjoyable. I love DL, but with the wrong (IMO) DM it doesn't matter.
Let's just ignore the "relative literary merit" comment.
I understand your argument, but anything you do in the "future" of the 5th age will no doubt conflict with the novels as they come out.
So you lead a small battalion of Solamnic knights allied with Gilthas and Alhana to cut off supply lines to the minotaurs occupying Silvanesti...
well it thats not how it happens in the books to come... its the same thing as changing the events of the war of the lance.
Personnally, I love the war of the lance period. I grew up on that stuff. I am biased towards it. I find the new heroes a little too... flat.
I cried when Sturm died on the high clerist's tower.
I didn't cry when silvanoshei died.
I will play games in the 5th age, but I'll likely play during the war of the lance as well.
The way I see it, your characters can make an impact and do important things without altering the events that have been or are to come.
Not every character has to be a Huma or Raistlin.
Originally posted by Solan
I cried when Sturm died on the high clerist's tower.
I didn't cry when silvanoshei died.
Bad comparison, I think. I don't think we were supposed to feel about Silvanoshei the way we did about Sturm. Or if we were...then I most certainly wasn't on the same page as the authors, for I too [almost] cheered when Silvanoshei died. Okay, it wasn't that bad...it was rather poetic, though, the way he died, don't you think?
But really, the quesiton you should ask is: How did you feel about the death of Marshal Medan, Laurana, and Qualinost? Now that was powerful stuff!
Unfortunately, I can't compare it to the death of Sturm because I have no recollection how I felt...and I knew before hand it was coming, the friend that got me into DL spoiled that little bit of info LONG before I ever even read my first DL book.
Ah well.I was also pretty moved by the death Razor for some reason, much more than of Silvanoshei -there was something about him I didn't like. Guess I just have a soft spot for the loyal blue dragon ;)
Arandur
He was the best, most three dimensional character in the series, and probably the best persona they've created.
The power in the War of Souls trilogy I don't see. I am not particularly attached to Mina, nor any of the other characters except the Marshal and the Knight. I didn't even like Palin, even when he was dead!!! It was a good story, perfectly acceptable for any number of reasons..
but did it have the power of the original Chronicles? Or the Legends?
No, I don't think it did. I don't know why, I just don't find the books as engaging. If i had to venture a guess i'd say this:
All of the characters in the Chronicals were multidimensional characters that dealt with a number of issues, each pulling on the character. Look at Tanis: he has his childhood love with Laurana, his human love with Kitera, and his duty to his friends. All throughout the book these forces pull at him. Flint, the grandfather figure, is pulled by love of his friends, his fear of dying as his father died, and a sense of duty to the world at large. Tas had his natural innocence being changed into a care about the world, a care about his friends, and his own curriosity tugging around.
Every character was beautifully detailed, even Tika. I think that is lacking with the new books.
I know everyone will disagree with me "look at Mina's past with Goldmoon" etc etc, but I for me, it didn't work. I just think the book fell flat.
Rosisha
And does anyone else find Silvanoshei to be very similar to Gilthas? To coin a phrase from earlier I thought they both were 'whiny gits'. Is this the leadership the elven nation has to look forward to? Admitedly Gilthas did seem to conjure himself a pair in the later part of the War of Souls so I can only hope he grows from there...
Arandur
Arandur
My other problem is that almost every character was some super powerful politician or general. Though this is nice for them, and I'm glad some of them finally had positions of power, the problem is that Dragonlance was always about characters you could relate too. I can't relate with that (though i would love to, remember in thirteen years to vote for me for President!!! I'll run under the "Replacing the military with Knights of Solamnia platform, cause Knights of Solamnia are cooler!"). You have Mina leading an army, you have Gilthas and the Lioness leading an army, you have Silvy the Whiner leading an army here and there, then just running around doing his own thing becuase he is a moron (not a trait to endear him). Everyone is running around with an army, except for the Knight (whose name escapes me) and he was one of the more interesting characters.
In the Chronicals, yes they occasionally had an army. Laurana leading the knights, but it was taken on unwillingly, and with protest. And in the end it was a small group of heroes attacking the Temple that won the war, not armies or counter armies, or massive battles in Sanction.
It was an interesting read, but the characters just seemed to be game pieces. All throughout the Chronicals you are aware of massive armies, but except for a short piece in Dragons of Spring Dawning, you are not forced to read about march after march.
Rosisha