Dragonlance vs. Forgotten Realms

daddystabz

Explorer
I am thinking over where I want to play my D&D 4e campaign at as to what setting. What do you all prefer for D&D setting for a campaign? Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Please state why you think one is better than the other and the pros and cons of each if you want.

Thanks in advance!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Personally, I prefer DL.

FR, while having a rich and full history, has a problem with every single bartender between Sembia and Waterdeep being a level 20+ retired adventurer.

Besides, I'm a sucker for knights riding dragons into battle.
 


I always had trouble running campaigns in DL--the world is, for the most part, fairly small and well-explored. I always had to be fairly contrived to create adventure areas.
 

I love both settings and played both in 2e 3e and hopefully 4e

DL is cool due to dragons, draconians(not dragonborn), kender and the limitations of magic (mage curse) if you prefer a low magic setting where it isn't the mage who always saves the day and has a variety of Knighthoods to join
Find out more here
Dragonlance Forums

Dragonlance Nexus


FR is cool if you want to play a anything anything type of campaign, it is large compared to DL but is more explored, if you wish to play a high magic setting go for the realms, Im waiting for the campaign setting to come out before I decide if I will choose old or new
 

I've only played a little 2E Forgotten Realms and no Dragonlance. But my sense is that Forgotten Realms had more, different kinds of things going on in the background. Lot's of schemes and groups working in the background that you can give hints of if you like. Things are supposed to change and evolve while you're "not looking". Dragonlance seemed more focused on a single theme.

But again, I haven't played DL much, just read some of the novels.
 

I don't like DL for the same reason I would not play in the Star Wars universe.

You can't do better than the Heroes of the War of the Lance or Anakin/Luke.

FR doesn't have such a strong "metaplot".
 

I prefer DL, but both worlds are so big that you can adventure for a lifetime without ever touching on the central plots of either world.

I think DL allows you to use the 4E races more easily without any real changes (except Tieflings).
For Draconian, use Dragonborn.
For Kender, use Halflings.
For Qualinesti & Sylvanesti, use Eladrin.
For Kagonesti, use Elves.
For Irda, use Changelings (99% likely in the MM).
No Gnomes or Half-Orcs. I mean, those Tinker Gnomes were never really a PC race. :D

5th Age would be a great way to introduce Warlocks. You could play all Martial classes and Wizards during the Age of Despair. Lots of options.

That's what I wanted to do for my next campaign, but I got out-voted.
 

skeptic said:
I don't like DL for the same reason I would not play in the Star Wars universe.

You can't do better than the Heroes of the War of the Lance or Anakin/Luke.

FR doesn't have such a strong "metaplot".
It's really too bad DL was introduced by such rail-roady adventures, but there are many more options than running the War of the Lance over and over again. I wouldn't worry about Tanis Half-Elven or Raistlin any more than I worry about the Knights of Myth-Dranor or Elminster.
 

Irda Ranger said:
It's really too bad DL was introduced by such rail-roady adventures, but there are many more options than running the War of the Lance over and over again. I wouldn't worry about Tanis Half-Elven or Raistlin any more than I worry about the Knights of Myth-Dranor or Elminster.

What's more, with only one notable exception, the DL iconics are much more "down to earth" than you'll find in FR.

Is Tanis a badass? Sure, but he's a badass who tops out around 14th level, _maybe_. Even if you include the heroes of the lance, it's not that hard to outshine them. Compare that to the guy in the FR who washes your clothes for 2 coppers. He's just about guaranteed to be 48th level and have a divine rank of 3 or higher.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top