Dragonlance Do you plan to buy Dragonlance?

[Ralif Redhammer]

Crud, I'm thinking of Sovereign Stone. I stand corrected!

The campaign setting was published by WotC, only the supplements were "3rd party" but they were still licensed from WotC, and thus subject to WotC supervision/approvals.

Normally, yeah, but Dragonlance is technically not their IP. Even if Weis and Hickman are generally considered the main voices within Dragonlance, it was owned by TSR and is now owned by Wizards.

I think it pretty understandable for authors to be resistant to other people changing their work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Crud, I'm thinking of Sovereign Stone. I stand corrected!



Normally, yeah, but Dragonlance is technically not their IP. Even if Weis and Hickman are generally considered the main voices within Dragonlance, it was owned by TSR and is now owned by Wizards.

Just because you're resistant doesn't mean you have any legal ability to stop them.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I went with yes, but every time I see a post about how WOTC should exclude classes and races from the setting, the less likely I am to buy it.

Why it's just those DMs. They should not influence you.

 

[Redwizard007]

Dragonlance? The setting with dragons actually taking an active role? Yeah. I'm gonna buy the hell out of that.

 

[Ystraeth]

While I have nostalgia for earlier settings, Dragonlance included, I'm not at all keen on adventures-as-settings. So, no, on form factor alone.

If there was a comprehensive setting book (print) then absolutely I would. Adventure books (like Candlekeep etc) do not interest me, and I feel burned by the Spelljammer form factor too....so, Planescape is a nope for me now, too.

Gimme Eberron or Ravenloft style books and I'm usually a must-buy, even if its just to read.

 

[the Jester]

Likely I'll buy whatever DL product has mass combat rules and skip the rest. I'm not a great fan of DL.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, though what exactly went down behind the scenes and what discussions were had before Wizards and the authors agreed to move forward is still an unknown. One thing that seemed very telling was at the last Wizards Direct, they announced a full line of reprints of R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt novels, but not a word about Dragons of Deceit.

Ultimately, I guess my point is twofold on changes to Dragonlance lore:

1 - The only reason Dragonlance didn't have dwarven wizards is because at the time D&D didn't. If D&D did, for all we know Raistlin and Caramon could've been dwarves. This isn't some deep authorial decision, but simply a direct influence of the game at the time. To me, it's the same with Greyhawk and arguments that it shouldn't have this or that race or class - if harengon had been around back then, you can bet Gary would've had them in Greyhawk. Since the game has changed, I don't really see a reason why the worlds can't change too.

2 - Where canon meets real-world pain, canon must always give. Seeing segregated dining for kender at the Inn of the Last Home felt very ugly.

Just because you're resistant doesn't mean you have any legal ability to stop them.

 

[Stormonu]

Just because you're resistant doesn't mean you have any legal ability to stop them.

I am reminded of The Lone Ranger and Clayton Moore's attempts to retain the ability to "be" that character (esp. after the fiasco '81 movie).

 

[Magister Ludorum]

Why it's just those DMs. They should not influence you.

I'm not really a DL fan. I'm sure that WotC will have enough sense not to exclude popular core options when writing DL, so I'll probably buy it. My enthusiasm wanes with each pro-exclusion post I read, however.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

They've excluded races from settings already, though I think classes have been largely all in. I find I like it when they exclude classes/races to get a certain feel for the setting.

And I despise it. To each their own, I suppose.