The All-Purpose Dragonlance Thread

[Areswargod139]

Hello out there everyone. I thought I'd set up a thread to discuss that 'ol setting of Dragons, Lances, and unlikely heroes.

What do you all think of the setting? Love it? Hate it? Why or why not? Have issues with where its going? Stuff that never made sense? Stuff you loved? Characters that really stuck with you?

Come, one and all, and discuss.

[Baidas Kebante]

Love it and hate it at the same time. Personally, I think it peaked at the Legends trilogy and as a world had been slowly going downhill since then. Some of the trilogies were decent but didn't age well, while a precious few stand the test of time.

Loved the Draconian books, loved the Elves trilogy, enjoyed some of the Heroes novels. The only series that sticks with me now though, is Legends. Not even a fan of Chronicles anymore.

[shadzar]

I have a bunch of maps of Ansalon here that I made myself and some other people just left laying around and I took cause I figured they didn't want them anymore since they elft them laying around; and I am keeping them safe for them.

Where did this ring come from I wonder?

[Areswargod139]

Love it and hate it at the same time. Personally, I think it peaked at the Legends trilogy and as a world had been slowly going downhill since then. Some of the trilogies were decent but didn't age well, while a precious few stand the test of time.

Loved the Draconian books, loved the Elves trilogy, enjoyed some of the Heroes novels. The only series that sticks with me now though, is Legends. Not even a fan of Chronicles anymore.

That's pretty much the attitude that a lot of DL fans have, so your definitely not alone there.

Great stuff, folks. Keep those comments a'comin'!

[Tsotha-lanti]

I liked - and still appreciate, in a nostalgic way - the Chronicles and Legends, and enjoyed the Raistlin background novels, but I never had any interest in reading either prequels or sequels past those. Looking back on the books now, they're obviously horrible literature, but still the shining spearhead of D&D novels - stuff like Salvatore, Troy Denning's Dark Sun novels or Jeff Grubb's FR books are just atrocious.

The setting, though, is one of my favorites - probably sharing third place with Faerûn (behind Planescape and Dark Sun).

I haven't gotten to run 4E yet, but I intend to run a Dragonlance campaign and have created some converted Draconians already. (And worked on non-solo dragons; my D&D-style is firmly grounded in the gold box AD&D games, of which Champions of Krynn, Death Knights of Krynn, and Dark Queen of Krynn are my favorites, and I can't run that stuff without elite dragons.)

[Areswargod139]

I liked - and still appreciate, in a nostalgic way - the Chronicles and Legends, and enjoyed the Raistlin background novels, but I never had any interest in reading either prequels or sequels past those. Looking back on the books now, they're obviously horrible literature, but still the shining spearhead of D&D novels - stuff like Salvatore, Troy Denning's Dark Sun novels or Jeff Grubb's FR books are just atrocious.

Agreed, but a lot of old DL fans couldn't be that honest, so thumbs up to you.

The setting, though, is one of my favorites - probably sharing third place with Faerûn (behind Planescape and Dark Sun).

Blasphemy, lol. Well, 'cept Planescape of course.

I haven't gotten to run 4E yet, but I intend to run a Dragonlance campaign and have created some converted Draconians already. (And worked on non-solo dragons; my D&D-style is firmly grounded in the gold box AD&D games, of which Champions of Krynn, Death Knights of Krynn, and Dark Queen of Krynn are my favorites, and I can't run that stuff without elite dragons.)

Excellent.

Alright guys let's get this thread a poppin'. C'mon, post...I dare you.

[Deastorm]

I strongly disagree it's horrible literature, I think it should be taught in high school. I learned more from that than I did Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies.

I love the series, as reading, hated the campaign world to play in. I also hate some of the playing styles it has given birth to (looking at you, tinker gnomes and kender knock-offs).

[Areswargod139]

I strongly disagree it's horrible literature, I think it should be taught in high school. I learned more from that than I did Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies.

I love the series, as reading, hated the campaign world to play in. I also hate some of the playing styles it has given birth to (looking at you, tinker gnomes and kender knock-offs).

That's an interesting point. A lot 1st-generation gamers really hate DL because they blame Tracy Hickman for introducing the "railroad"--having an epic story that the characters follow--versus the old "sandbox"--plop characters into a dungeon and have at it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, it's just an interesting point you bring up.

Any thoughts, everyone?

[RTGoodman]

I haven't gotten to run 4E yet, but I intend to run a Dragonlance campaign and have created some converted Draconians already.

Heh, I started that very thing over the Fall or Winter as a PbP here, but it sort of fizzled out because of real-life things 'round here. The party was just leaving Haven at the time, but it seemed like it was working out well. I've still got my 4E Draconian conversions around here somewhere if you wanna take a look. Never got far enough to worry about real dragons.


I'm a fan of Dragonlance, but not a long-time one. I just started reading 'em... gosh, I guess probably about a year and few months ago. It was my last semester or two as an undergraduate, and I had an hour between two classes, so I'd go sit in the little food court place on campus and read 'em. Like everyone else, I'm a big fan of the original Chronicles and Legends series, but I don't like much after that. Don't care about Mina, didn't care much about the Second Generation and whatnot.

I will tell you, though, my favorite books are The Legend of Huma and Kaz the Minotaur. Alongside Sturm Brightblade, those are my two favorite characters from the DL setting. (Okay, I do like Tas, too, but don't hate me for liking Kender a lot.)


I started a Dragonlance thread here a while back, too, that lasted a while, and I think we discussed the DL setting as the origin of the "railroad" a little. Gimme a bit and I'll dig it up.

[FoE]

I hate that 'balance between good and evil' crap, so I never endeared myself to the setting. But I liked the Ravenloft book about Soth.

[shadzar]

That's an interesting point. A lot 1st-generation gamers really hate DL because they blame Tracy Hickman for introducing the "railroad"--having an epic story that the characters follow--versus the old "sandbox"--plop characters into a dungeon and have at it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, it's just an interesting point you bring up.

Any thoughts, everyone?

What kind of idiot would pick up an adventure series based around a plot similar to LotR, and then complain that it would be railroady?

I you don't want to play through a novel, then don't get an adventure series then don't run it.

I have the same problem with anyone complaining about any amount of fluu or story line in any setting.

If you don't want to follow the exact stories in the settings, then just don't follow the stories. It isn't that hard. You don't have to play out the future of your game based on the companions or anyone else.

Take Krynn from point A, and then do what you want in the game. You never have to follow a single story line to conclusion. But don't complain cause you followed the classics series and ended up playing through them. That goes for any module series. You are being dragged along from adventure to adventure. But that is what a plot is afterall, so it really goes for most games. DMs creating plots in the form of hooks, and the players take them or not.

[Areswargod139]

What kind of idiot would pick up an adventure series based around a plot similar to LotR, and then complain that it would be railroady?

I you don't want to play through a novel, then don't get an adventure series then don't run it.

I have the same problem with anyone complaining about any amount of fluu or story line in any setting.

If you don't want to follow the exact stories in the settings, then just don't follow the stories. It isn't that hard. You don't have to play out the future of your game based on the companions or anyone else.

Take Krynn from point A, and then do what you want in the game. You never have to follow a single story line to conclusion. But don't complain cause you followed the classics series and ended up playing through them. That goes for any module series. You are being dragged along from adventure to adventure. But that is what a plot is afterall, so it really goes for most games. DMs creating plots in the form of hooks, and the players take them or not.

That's not what we're talking about. We're referring to playstyles, not specific campaigns. The "sandbox" was basically your basic dungeon-dive. At best they represented the old pulp action novels like Conan the Barbarian, and at worst...they were like Conan the Barbarian..."Me emotive! Me have good character background!!"
The "railroad" is the more story-based game. In it a DM encourages players to have a well-fleshed out backstory that might actually manifest itself in the game...at worst it features the DM pulling the party to his/her badly-written fanfic with no player choice at all. I guess the best way to describe both would be plot-lite and plot-heavy, respectively.

I hate that 'balance between good and evil' crap, so I never endeared myself to the setting. But I liked the Ravenloft book about Soth.

It's actually one of the stronger points of the setting, once upon a time at least. The idea was--and this concept was also in Planescape and somewhat appears in Ebberon as well--was that good and evil were ideological extremes. One of the most interesting parts of the backstory of DL was that the most damage done to the world was when good became too powerful.

Sadly, these days it appears that DL is backing off the "neutrality knows best" argument.

But yeah, rtg, whip out that thread if you can find it.

[Dacia Brabant]

It's actually one of the stronger points of the setting, once upon a time at least. The idea was--and this concept was also in Planescape and somewhat appears in Ebberon as well--was that good and evil were ideological extremes. One of the most interesting parts of the backstory of DL was that the most damage done to the world was when good became too powerful.

Sadly, these days it appears that DL is backing off the "neutrality knows best" argument.

Except that the Kingpriest wasn't good, or at least he wasn't when he and his whole society became decadent and corrupt with power.

On the other hand, there is the semblance of a decent argument in there somewhere: it's not that "Too Much Good" is bad (which is the overt statement made in the books) but rather "Too Much Power" is bad. Being Neutral has nothing to do with it, except for the kind of neutrality causes one to shun dominance and favor a more live-and-let-live approach, but that too is good (Neutral Good to be precise).

But being a fence-sitter while two sides war with each other, siding with one or the other in turn as one side gets too powerful, is just silly. Too bad that was how True Neutral was written back in the day--True Schizophrenic more like it.

Anyway, yeah Dragonlance had its moments, I certainly got a lot of enjoyment out of reading Chronicles and Legends when I was a kid even if I wouldn't touch them now, but try as I might I could never get into it as a RP setting.

[shadzar]

That's not what we're talking about. We're referring to playstyles, not specific campaigns. The "sandbox" was basically your basic dungeon-dive. At best they represented the old pulp action novels like Conan the Barbarian, and at worst...they were like Conan the Barbarian..."Me emotive! Me have good character background!!"
The "railroad" is the more story-based game. In it a DM encourages players to have a well-fleshed out backstory that might actually manifest itself in the game...at worst it features the DM pulling the party to his/her badly-written fanfic with no player choice at all. I guess the best way to describe both would be plot-lite and plot-heavy, respectively.

Then the problem is Gary created the plot-driven rather than dungeon-dive style of games with his first adventures.

Sandbox games would be ones without prewritten modules or advanced plot. There is nothing for you TO do, but everything you can do, and things pop up out of necessity rather than because they were planned to work in a certain fashion.

All modules work that way. You are taken form point A to point B. Beginning to end. You can take a different path to get there depending on which room you choose first, but you are still railroaded through the end that the DM wants.

All Tracy did was take his game that WAS a sandbox and write it up.

You might as well blame Dave, Frank, and Ed for making railroady games as well since they also designed things that had a clear distinct end.

That was my point. You cannot blame ANY adventure for having a clear defined path that leads to the end. You choose to play it, so you choose to agree to that end.

IF you don't want to play the Dragonlance Classics just as Tanis et all went through them from the players and novel perspective, then don't use those modules.

Just grab the Dragonlance adventures book, or boxed set and plop your own characters into the world, and not bother with anything scripted in the future for the world. Same goes for those with problems of trying to play to "canon" for other settings such as Forgotten Realms.

The railroad only comes into play, because the players agree to it, and then they have no right to complain about it.

I think this line from the show Super Chicken explains exactly what I am saying: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred."

So if you choose to do something, you have no right to complain to or blame someone else that you did it.

DL/FR, any setting is only as railroady per scripted stories from novels et all because the players agree to do it that way.

Set you game in Krynn with the obvious changes to standard game with the effects of the moons of the different wizards. Halflings replaced by Kender. Etc.

Then just run your own game. Ignore that Tanis and the companions even exist, and never seek them out and you don't fall into the trappings of feeling like you are being railroaded. If the players wish to seek them out due to fan status, then they force upon the DM for the players to interact with those character, that have some scripted way of doing things, and things to be done.

You can play in pre- or post-Cataclysm and never meet any of those people, and by doing so remove the ability to be railroaded by anything Tracy wrote.

They (the companions) never even have to exist in your world, and you don't have to fight the battle of Takhisis vs Paladine as the major goals.

You have a basis for any age should you choose to use them, or just take the basic premise of DL and the world of Krynn and play in it in an open sandbox.

Now if you didn't want to play with kender instead of halflings, with draconians as warped dragon eggs turned dragonmen, and with the three moons affecting wizards, or the various orders of knights, and even the Dark Queen, Lord Soth, etc, then you probably shouldn't have accepted playing in a Dragonlance game.



Tinker gnomes are dumb and have bred stupidity such as Eberron that has become a part of the entire game of D&D as an integral and "core" part of it throwing steam-punk into somewhere it may not be welcome, and balanced in to exist by default.

I won't deny that sucks.

Kender knock-offs shouldn't exist because halflings in other games shouldn't be acting like kender. Don't allow kender in other games. Simple as that. Any re-skining people want to do to their hafling has to be approved by the DM, and as with other things (the pun-pun problem someone here is having), just don't allow it.

Kender can add to games when played right, but sadly even inside DL, many people do not know how to play them right and go WAY overboard.

That is not a fault of Dragonlance, or Tracy, or Roger Moore (not the James Bond actor); but the players that have no self-control.

[shadzar]

(part two from above because it might not have fit otherwise.)

So even with those problems, having a background is in no way railroady.

People can have backgrounds that don't interact. It was a natural course of the game for people to want to play wondering who was their character? Why are they adventuring? Where did they come from?

It doesn't have to coincide with Uncle Trapspringer to be a kender, or the Greystone having any cause for them to exist, but it is a roleplaying aspect that gives more life to the game and the characters as well the world.

Again this started when Dave creted Blackmoor and gave the world a history and place to begin, so that players were interested in where their own characters came from rather than being a hack-n-slash style gauntlet of a game.

Otherwise you just have killers/mercenaries for characters, that go kill things for money, steal their property and go back to town drinking and whoring with the money they made.

Sounds like a real fun game to me.

So look at Blackmoor and Dave for the idea of playing singular characters to see where the idea of backgrounds would have come into play, and then blame the players for thinking that any background they may come up with HAS to be included in the game.

An adventurer is one who has left their home for some reason and may not even be able to return. Take Riverwind for example.

So while a background can add depth to a character, it doesn't ever really mean it has to play a future int he characters life in the game.

Even if it does so what? and who says it has to be in the way the player thinks it will.

When all else fails remember the 2 rules of D&D.

1- The DM is always right.
2- When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1.

So if you give a background and expect it to be implemented in the game, don't complain when it isn't the way you wanted it to exactly be.

Maybe I am still mising something as it is dealing with Dragonlance in general?

[Areswargod139]

Maybe I am still mising something as it is dealing with Dragonlance in general?

You're missing most things. First off is the rant that came out of left field. All I did was state, very generally, about the issues really old gamers have about DL. If you want to make a side thread to discuss your interpretation that railroads are not railroads and that Gygax invented them, then by all means do so, it's just that were not discussing this topic, but Dragonlance. This is definitely a soft-button issue for you, which proves that the railroad versus the sandbox dichotomy is still controversial.

All in all, thanks for the DL comments, but lets keep it on topic?

[shadzar]

No the comment was that early edition players hate DL because of railroading. That is very Dragonlance oriented statement that I was trying to discuss.

But it isn't just a case of Dragonlance that I was saying, and trying to figure out how Tracy was responsible for all railroady games.

[Areswargod139]

Except that the Kingpriest wasn't good, or at least he wasn't when he and his whole society became decadent and corrupt with power.

No, the Kingpriest was Lawful Good up till the end. The idea of morality in Planescape, Dragonlance, and even Eberron doesn't conform to the Western/Christian concept of altruism. Here goodness is an alignment that focuses on positive energy, light, and an opposition to evil (a team vs. team attitude). It can imply altruism, but we see many "good" nations in DL that are good yet not altuistic. The Silvanesti elves and the Solomnic Knights spring readily to mind. These people routinely engage all sort of dirty stuff, but because they are loyal to the gods of light, they remain "good". Now I'm not saying these settings don't emphasis that its a slippery slope (as in the case of the Kingpriest) but all in all old 2nd e morality doesn't match up with normal morality. The best way of looking at it is less of a good versus evil notion than a light versus dark, with neutrality being the truly "ethical" alignment because its fence-sitting in what are essentially pointless team versus team conflicts, instead focusing on what these wars do to regular people.

Don't believe me? Think of the Blood War in Planescape (and other sources). The sourcebooks clearly state that should the Blood War ever have a definitive winner or should the fighting stop, the united fiends would overwhelm the forces of good. The forces of good (Mt. Celestia, etc) due all they can to keep the war going, including arming both sides with weapons and all that. Good here isn't altruistic or idealistic, they're a force of light, creation (and in the Archon's case, order) and they maintain they're own survival.
At least, this is my reading. YMMV.

[Areswargod139]

No the comment was that early edition players hate DL because of railroading. That is very Dragonlance oriented statement that I was trying to discuss.

But it isn't just a case of Dragonlance that I was saying, and trying to figure out how Tracy was responsible for all railroady games.

I stated that it was a prevailing opinion among many early gamers because someone said something to that effect. If you want proof that early gamers think that, here ya go:
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/...verything.html

[Ehra]

The only experience I have with Dragonlance are the novels which, as far as most fantasy goes, aren't bad at all. Definitely don't see where some of the hate comes from, especially for Kender. But then I've never played a game of Dragonlance so maybe I'm missing something.

[Deastorm]

Shadzar, you win at either the most easily readible post on the internet, or the most unnecessary uses of the Enter key in a post. Either way, I think you're tilting at windmills, no one said ever introduced an idea contrary to your stance.

Edit: to the post above, people don't hate Kender, per se, they hate people using Kender as an excuse to be obnoxious at a gaming table. I love a well roleplayed Kender! Someone curious, random, and useful if correctly applied. Most use it as an excuse to play kleptomaniac, compulsive lying, clinically retarded midgets. Which is a subtle difference from real kender. >.>

[shadzar]

Oh so this was not originated said here but heresay form elsewhere.

Those people don't speak for all people that have been playing for nigh on 30 years.

Anywho....

Kender players were definitely a bigger problem for the race than the race itself.

I never heard a complaint about myself playing a kender after the game, but in the game the way the kender itself acted (questions game, fearlessness) made some of the other characters question why they traveled with a kender, but still found him useful, if not expendable.

You just have to play it right, and not try to steal everything not nailed down form your own party members.

Sadly many people see a kender for that sole purpose. Handling does not mean you want everything, nor that everything piques your interest. That is a flaw in the kender players who refuse to set up front to the group what the player intends to have the character find interesting.

Rule #1 for kender party members. Get to known your kender player!

[Dacia Brabant]

No, the Kingpriest was Lawful Good up till the end. The idea of morality in Planescape, Dragonlance, and even Eberron doesn't conform to the Western/Christian concept of altruism. Here goodness is an alignment that focuses on positive energy, light, and an opposition to evil (a team vs. team attitude). It can imply altruism, but we see many "good" nations in DL that are good yet not altuistic. The Silvanesti elves and the Solomnic Knights spring readily to mind. These people routinely engage all sort of dirty stuff, but because they are loyal to the gods of light, they remain "good". Now I'm not saying these settings don't emphasis that its a slippery slope (as in the case of the Kingpriest) but all in all old 2nd e morality doesn't match up with normal morality. The best way of looking at it is less of a good versus evil notion than a light versus dark, with neutrality being the truly "ethical" alignment because its fence-sitting in what are essentially pointless team versus team conflicts, instead focusing on what these wars do to regular people.

You do have a point about the "light team vs. dark team" mentality within 2nd Edition D&D and its various literary manifestations in Dragonlance and the like, but when you start ascribing words with concrete meanings such as "Good" and "Evil" to this it gets problematic.

Good and Evil are objective in D&D, it's not enough to just say "oh he's Lawful Good" when he doesn't behave like it. The Kingpriest ran an Orwellian Police State where if you didn't believe exactly as he did, well it would've been better if you hadn't been born. The Silvanesti were so blindly racist that they wouldn't cooperate with anyone even unto the point where they lost their kingdom, and let's not even get started with the Knights of Solamnia.

It's like with Kore the Paladin from Goblins, he may be a Paladin and he may be "Lawful Good" on paper but murdering helpless innocents is pretty much the opposite of what the alignment is supposed to be.

And Good vs. Evil shouldn't be a pointless team-against-team conflict; if all one group wants is to live in peace but another group wants to come in and kill them, take their stuff and enslave the survivors, well one of those things is not like the other. The neutrals shouldn't sit on the fence, they should help fight the would-be conquerors since there's nothing that says they won't be next.

[Raenir Salazar]

I play a Kender on a NWN2-Faerun persistent world fairly well, I try to channel Caboose from RedvsBlue.

Draconians are my favorite race, followed by Kender.

[Areswargod139]

You do have a point about the "light team vs. dark team" mentality within 2nd Edition D&D and its various literary manifestations in Dragonlance and the like, but when you start ascribing words with concrete meanings such as "Good" and "Evil" to this it gets problematic.

Good and Evil are objective in D&D, it's not enough to just say "oh he's Lawful Good" when he doesn't behave like it. The Kingpriest ran an Orwellian Police State where if you didn't believe exactly as he did, well it would've been better if you hadn't been born. The Silvanesti were so blindly racist that they wouldn't cooperate with anyone even unto the point where they lost their kingdom, and let's not even get started with the Knights of Solamnia.

It's like with Kore the Paladin from Goblins, he may be a Paladin and he may be "Lawful Good" on paper but murdering helpless innocents is pretty much the opposite of what the alignment is supposed to be.

And Good vs. Evil shouldn't be a pointless team-against-team conflict; if all one group wants is to live in peace but another group wants to come in and kill them, take their stuff and enslave the survivors, well one of those things is not like the other. The neutrals shouldn't sit on the fence, they should help fight the would-be conquerors since there's nothing that says they won't be next.

Oh it's problematic as all beat heck, but it's how those campaign settings work in-universe. Basically what we think of as "good"; standing up for the common folk (as in caring what happens to them, not killing the local goblins for XP), caring about people's ability to choose their own fate, freedom, all that...it's pretty much 2nd e neutrality.
I have a anecdote I use when I explain it to younger players:
An evil horde of goblins invades and razes a village. They are very happy about this.
A good cavalry of heroic knights fight a last-ditch battle against the evil forces of whatever and in the process a village of norms is destroyed. They wring their hands and lament the never-ending battle of good versus evil for a second, gear up and go on to the next battle.
In the end, the village is destroyed, it's just the intentions of the two that are different. From the 2nd e neutral perspective, these two alignments are dangerous moral extremes.

[Halaster]

Well, I don't think my ideas on Dragonlance are all that well thought out, but since Ares asked me, I'll contribute. I think Dragonlance is really bad, and if I had to rank all D&D settings I've read and/or played, it would come up last, tied with Ravenloft.

1. I read a few of the novels, and they quite put me off the topic. The characters are all whiners, tied up about issues that aren't really issues, because they are complete fantasy. Like Tanis and his whole "I'm a half-elf, where do I belong?". Some might say that this relates to real-world race issues, but I just can't identify with this if it involves really different races. I mean, the whole point of condemning racism is that we are all the same, black, white or whatnot. But elves and humans simply are not alike, period. So, yeah.
2. It's the alignment system made into a game setting. Good and evil are all over the place and have their own frakking moons. Come on. Alignment isn't my favorite idea to begin with, but it works, if you give it it's place. But turn it into the basic premise of a setting and you're headed for trite, unfunny play.
3. On a personal note, some of my least favorite D&D players (a bunch of uber-hyped, manga-crazed nerds) love it.
4. and most important: Kender. Any setting containing such an idiotic race, and as playable characters on top of it, deserves to land on the trash heap of role-playing history. Aside from the fact that they put the whole sanctimonious "we are dealing with deeply dramatic character play" crap up for laughs, they are just the most annoying little bastards ever, beating Earthdawns Windlings by leagues.

It's been a while since I last considered it, so forgive me if my memory is a little blurry here and there, and please don't tell me I misrepresented something. This post is about my impressions of the system, and I think that's what matters. If it takes me a lecture to see a setting's virtues, I'm not interested.

[Areswargod139]

Well, I don't think my ideas on Dragonlance are all that well thought out, but since Ares asked me, I'll contribute. I think Dragonlance is really bad, and if I had to rank all D&D settings I've read and/or played, it would come up last, tied with Ravenloft.

[snippity snip snip]

It's been a while since I last considered it, so forgive me if my memory is a little blurry here and there, and please don't tell me I misrepresented something. This post is about my impressions of the system, and I think that's what matters. If it takes me a lecture to see a setting's virtues, I'm not interested.

You didn't really misrepresent anything. It's true that DL and Ravenloft are very character driven and metaphysical, so my guess is that these settings weren't "manly" enough for ya.

You won't receive any lecture from me, I just wanted a more even "polling of the electorate" on DL.
One question though: You've been clear on what you don't like in a campaign setting, but what's your favorite? What do you like in a campaign setting?

[shadzar]

Since I have already said other things....

Loved in DL:

Moons affecting wizards. I like wild mage and how magic isn't always a constant thing, and this greatly showcases something I like about magic in that a wizard can have good or bad days too because of extenuating circumstances...like the moons.

Vast open spaces and peoples therein. You had plainsmen that were not as technologically evolved and were showcased. It wasn't everything was a developed city with a government, but outlying places had rudimentary skills and tools. Peoples in tents rather than formed housing. Makes the world seem more real.

Kender. I said it before and will say it again. They are like LotR and most of the setting is. Kender specifically as Bilbo in thieving. It wasn't their quest for greed that led to it, but curiosity.

The setting was great to play in, and the books were great to read.

There is little I don't like about DL. It encompassed more of the grenre from King Arthur style things like the orders of knights, LotR, andother fiction that just meshed well together for me.

[Another_Poet]

Well, speaking for myself, I read the dragonlance novels before I played D&D and didn't even know they were related to D&D. I picked up the first book of the Meetings Sextet just because the back cover sounded good. That series has a lot of nostalgia for me... man, I really did fall in love with that world and those characters' lonely stories. Only on completing that series did I read the original "Dragons of..." trilogy, which I thought was alright but not as good because it was about this huge good-vs-evil concept instead of individual characters. Then I read some other series and found how much the quality varied and eventually stopped reading them.

I've never played in DL but would love to try it.

Incidentally, has anyone seen the animated Dragons of Autumn Twilight movie? *laughs like a wild maniac* WHOA you have to see it. If you didn't get the Christianesque "faith solves everything" theme that was woven into the original books, this movie will club your brains out with it. It is very funny though... definitely worth watching when you're in a lighthearted mood.

ap

[shadzar]

Incidentally, has anyone seen the animated Dragons of Autumn Twlight movie? *laughs like a wild maniac* WHOA you have to see it. If you didn't get the Christianesque "faith solves everything" theme that was woven into the original books, this movie will club your braibns out with it. It is very funny though... definitely worth watching when you're in a lighthearted mood.

ap

OK you made me a liar and there is something about DL I dislike. The poor quality of that movie with choppy animation for the drawn parts, and the poor thinking in adding CG and and other animation together.

It would have been better had they not tried to CG the dragons and left all in traditional animation. Also they butchered the time-frame by skipping so much stuff to compress it into under 1:30.

It showed most of the people in the right light of how they were represented, but flowed poorly.