Dragonlance The importance of Dragonlance

[Paul Farquhar]

I think, by the time we had the spending money to be buying modules and the like, the original DL adventures were off the shelves

Certainly at what point you came in has a big influence on your impressions. I came in one the ground floor so to speak, and thought DL1 was excellent (although I never got around to running it). It wasn't really until the second module that the problems started to become apparent. This is where the "this character can't die" rule came in, but it also felt like dull filler that was too focused on developing the villains. Then it became apparent that the dungeon modules wouldn't tell the whole story, and it would be necessary to read the novels. Which for me was a somewhat painful experience, having already read much better fantasy. And I was mature enough to be offended by the gully dwarves and Fizban. But I enjoyed the Dragonlance Adventures sourcebook, which is remarkably similar to the setting books WotC are putting out today.

Looking back at it, I think it had the usual growing pains (modules were railroady, but it's entirely possible no one had said that was a no-no at the time, and they didn't repeat it with later product

To an extent. But even after it was called out as an issue railroady adventure paths continued to be published, right up to early 5e. I think it's probably unfair to point to Dragonlance as the cause though, it may well have been something that would have happened anyway, especially as it became apparent that larger books where more cost-effective than magazine-sized modules.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Probably like explaining why the Clash of the Titans or the Schwarzenegger Conan was such a cut above a bunch of the B-grade fantasy we were used to at the time -- it was just, generically good (except for personal pet peeve _____).

It's not hard to encapsulate at all. Conan punches out a camel while high on drugs.

 

[niklinna]

I think the problems are easy to encapsulate, while what exactly makes the setting/novels/adventures good are harder to do so. 'Well, they were just a real cut above a lot of the stuff that was coming out at the same time' doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement, even though it really is. Probably like explaining why the Clash of the Titans or the Schwarzenegger Conan was such a cut above a bunch of the B-grade fantasy we were used to at the time -- it was just, generically good (except for personal pet peeve _____).

I looked up that B-grade fantasy, and I have a couple questions.

1. There is an evil wizard, but no sorceress. Why is the film called Sorceress?
2. If I were an evil wizard, and I had to sacrifice my firstborn, and the mother gave birth to twins, I don't think I would agonize much over finding out which one was born first, I would just sacrifice them both. Along with the mother who refused to answer.

Yes I know #2 is not a question. In any case, I'd far rather watch Krull. At least the protagonist was kinda easy on the eyes.

And let us not forget the glory that was The Beastmaster. (Edit: I just found out it had two dreadful sequels. Where's the lye!?)

 

[Willie the Duck]

I looked up that B-grade fantasy, and I have a couple questions.

1. There is an evil wizard, but no sorceress. Why is the film called Sorceress?
2. If I were an evil wizard, and I had to sacrifice my firstborn, and the mother gave birth to twins, I don't think I would agonize much over finding out which one was born first, I would just sacrifice them both. Along with the mother who refused to answer.

Yes I know #2 is not a question. In any case, I'd far rather watch Krull. At least the protagonist was kinda easy on the eyes.

And let us not forget the glory that was The Beastmaster. (Edit: I just found out it had two dreadful sequels. Where's the lye!?)

Roger Coreman films (and schlock films in general) seem to have had a slew of titles they came up with as 'good titles to pair with a badass or titillating action pose to make people at the rental store/bargain bin pick the movie up and get on a lark.' This isn't really unique to schlock of course -- plenty of first-half-century-of-film era movies had titles only vaguely tied to the film subject (unless someone I don't remember was possessed in Possession, etc.).

The evil wizard made some questionable choices, but so did just about everyone and everything in the film. It's unclear if it was poorly edited, had no script, or why. Plenty of similar films are like that. If you want to learn more about campy-bad action-adventure films like this one, there's a rather good Youtube channel dedicated to the subject.

Beastmaster also had a late-90s/early-00s tv series. It was part of a group of syndicated tv shows that seemed to be made to capitalize on the success of other syndicated shows like Baywatch, Xena, and Highlander, as well as tax incentives by the Canadian and New Zealand governments, trying to bolster their tv production industries (same reason why X-files and Stargate SG-1 shot there). I remember liking the show for what it was, but each season they seemed to be trying to reinvent what it was. Probably wouldn't survive a re-watch.

The Lye is in the West Midlands. I hear it is nice.