Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Trent wrote:(including the infamous bi-curious ranger)

Had to go to the module to see what the you are talking about. After reading the 'relations' section of the character write-ups, \ I'm getting the impression that it may be the druid that swings both ways, though there may be something I'm missing beyond the character bios.

What the hell is up with that! Was this written during Gary's more 'experimental' period?

- Wheggi

James Maliszewski wrote:All fair points, particularly about the way that even Isle of the Ape evinced DL-style design elements. DL, I fear, didn't cause the end of the old school; its appearance was in fact a symptom of the fact that the old school had already fallen out of favor, from TSR on down to the fanbase at large. Speaking only for myself, lots of gamers back then, the vast majority of whom were not reading Dragon and weren't really "plugged in" to the larger trends of the hobby, wanted to run games that felt like epic fantasy novels and they were willing to sacrifice open-endedness and player control in order to achieve it. Dragonlance, for good or for ill, answered a very real desire on the part of many gamers, particularly younger ones, and TSR milked it for all it was worth.

Very true. There was definitely a move afoot pre-Dragonlance to make rpg-adventures more epic and storylike (and it wasn't limited just to D&D and TSR -- see, for instance, the Keith Brothers' adventures for Traveller (1981 on), "The Cradle" scenario for RuneQuest (in the Pavis: Threshhold to Danger box (1983)), The Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues for Paranoia (1984, and already cited upthread) and others). Dragonlance just represents a culmination and amplification of that trend -- that the players are not just going through a pre-defined story, they're doing it as pre-defined characters, and there's even a set of novels showing what the characters are like and how the story goes. And the audience ate it up, because as you say for most of them (i.e. those with no wargaming background) it's what they'd wanted all along and had struggled to get out of the likes of B2, The Kinunir and Griffin Mountain. I still lament that nobody held the line and preserved and defended the other approach, and that it pretty much completely disappeared (were there any rpgs promoting sandbox/wargame-style play in the late 80s-90s? Dangerous Journeys gave the tools for that style of play (just as AD&D did), but Necropolis wasn't a sandbox by any means) and has only been sort of haltingly revived within the last few years.

Wheggi wrote:

Trent wrote:(including the infamous bi-curious ranger)

Had to go to the module to see what the you are talking about. After reading the 'relations' section of the character write-ups, \ I'm getting the impression that it may be the druid that swings both ways, though there may be something I'm missing beyond the character bios.

What the hell is up with that! Was this written during Gary's more 'experimental' period?

- Wheggi

Alas, it's nothing so exciting or transgressive: apparently it was just an editing error -- one of the pre-gen characters (the druid, IIRC) had a last-minute male-to-female gender swap and that stray reference wasn't updated. Still makes for a funny "easter egg" though

Read the books after reading The Lord of the Rings, at around age twelve or thirteen. Really enjoyed them at the time, but never saw much point in the adventure modules when we could make our own. Still, I would say Dragonlance was a big part of the draw for me towards Dungeons & Dragons and away from War Hammer at the time. I am currently participating in a Dragonlance play-by-post AD&D game at Dragonsfoot, though the modules are not being used. Quite enjoying it so far, though I did grimace when PaladinesAngel elected to play a Kender Cleric, and naturally that character caused a bit of a disaster for us whilst exploring a dwarf mine. I am not too sad that we are now going our separate ways, I have to admit...

T. Foster wrote:I still lament that nobody held the line and preserved and defended the other approach, and that it pretty much completely disappeared (were there any rpgs promoting sandbox/wargame-style play in the late 80s-90s? Dangerous Journeys gave the tools for that style of play (just as AD&D did), but Necropolis wasn't a sandbox by any means) and has only been sort of haltingly revived within the last few years.

That's the thing... If the DL style of game had just become one of many styles, that would have been o.k. However, it became the only way games were presented in the mainstream for the next 15 years, to the extent that many simply can't conceive of how to play the game without a preconceived story, to the extent that many can't even talk about the game without using novelist jargon such as "plot, resolution" and so on.

Foster: "And the audience ate it up, because as you say for most of them (i.e. those with no wargaming background) it's what they'd wanted all along and had struggled to get out of the likes of B2, "

I don't know about the pre-req with wargaming. Our group never experianced wargaming (I still haven't really) yet we all intuitively loathed DL from its first appearance. It was the exact opposite of what everything before it had been (this was obvious to most people I think).

If DL had just been another bad support product it wouldn't have been such a big deal. The problem was it became the new "face" of D&D, and made everything that came before it seem old fashioned a trite.

rogatny wrote:For what it's worth, DL products, like most supplementary materials of the day, completely ignored UA.

This isn't an issue for me, as I did the same thing!

rogatny wrote:The pre-DLA Knights of Solamnia were statted up as fighters and the post-DLA Knights were their own class (classes, actually) separate from cavaliers.

Again, not an issue. This is exactly the way cavaliers were presented in my own campaign. Being a cavalier was largely a matter of role-playing and not a set of number on a character sheet. There were certain advantages (along with disadvantages) that accrued to a player if they stayed true to the archetype as they advanced in levels; but the arbiter of that behavior (that would be me) had a long memory.

rogatny wrote:DL could have been a good way of fleshing out the cavalier. But wasn't.

I think they did a good job, but I can certainly see where the point you're making.

I have a theory that DL is salvageable, however it just seems like too much effort to prove. It would mean starting with Fonstad’s The Atlas of the Dragonlance World, and carefully culling as much of maps and other setting information from the DL1-14 modules as possible, but without the plot as presented. And then setting the players loose (as new characters, not pregens, of course).

There is nothing wrong with the Dragons of Glory wargame. I would use it to gain familiarity with the world and its factions.

However, the framing story of the war is problematic in a roleplaying campaign. Not that there’s anything wrong with the idea that there are warring factions in the world, just the sense of a “world war” with the entire planet rushing towards Armageddon unless the PCs avert it now!! So I would definitely tone that down. I prefer a campaign in which the PCs can come and go at will with no real deadlines. Incidentally, this would be a problem in a The Lord of the Rings game, too. I would essentially start the campaign just prior to the outbreak of the war but never have the war break out in full force as in the books.

Just a word about Dragonlance Adventures: essentially, 1e DL modules don’t use it, but 2e DL modules do. Yes, it incorporates a few UA elements, but it’s moreso looking ahead to 2e, and they had Zeb Cook make sure it was 2e-compatible, with wizard schools and priest spheres and all that. Basically, if you’re doing 1e DL, do not use DLA.

I would also use Hobbits instead of Kender, but that’s just me. Regards.

It's a nice setting if you ignore all the canon and make it your own.

The DL series, as others have said, has a lot of railroading. DL is partly what drove me from D&D around 86/87 (DM and rest of group were absolutely fanatic about it -as well as the survival guides - and I wasn't).

I read the first novel, thought it to be a shallow, predictable story, with cardboard characters and generally poor writing. Put me off game-setting fiction for a long, long time.

However, a buddy of mine ran a 3.5 campaign set in DL, ignored the canon, and we had a good time. Of course, he's been infected with my old-school attitude, so there was no digging around for skill synergies, etc....

I think the railroading of DragonLance was based on experimental techniques that didn't end up being satisfying. The first few modules even had the character's motivations setup. This lead to the whole metaplot stuff that took hold in the late 1980s / early 1990s.

While I actually enjoyed the portrayal by Hickman and Weiss in the novels the modules were a bit trial and error. I felt this was a good case of "design by committee", instead of an organic single vision. This is why I think ultimately DL has never been as popular or as wide-ranging as Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. (And Greyhawk suffered once Gary left and TSR did too many experimental things that alienated the player base). Whatever people think of FR and Greyhawk, I always found those two campaign settings better designed by their creators than any other TSR/WoTC campaign setting. There's a wide level of diversity that can sustain years of play and feels sort of integrated. DL works better as a novel setting. There are several elements that don't match the "low fantasy" elements--how economies work, for instance, that Gygax and Greenwood address with care.

Dragonlance is fine, the modules are good.

I think it's people trying to run the modules in such a way as to recreate the novels where you get problems.

I have ran the modules many times, and they work just fine as modules.

I don't use the pre-gen characters, players make their own, and I don't force them to follow the plot.

Yes, the modules are epic fantasy, and yes, they have a plot.

AIIIEEEEE! CTHULHU FTAGN!

Sorry, what was I saying? Oh yeah, no, they aren't the pulpy sandbox we all know and love, but they are perfectly serviceable as modules.

Thanks for the great responses folks.
This is why I asked the question.

No problem Morgoth! I'm more than happy to say that DL sucks my salty nuts whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Ha, I did it again!

- Wheggi
NOW PLAYING ON RADIO WHGI: Dear Dead Days by Frost*

I remember devouring the Dragonlance novels while I was home sick from junior high with a gnarly flu. I thought they were great, as far as they went, but we *never* touched the modules.

On the other hand, I do recall a number of game systems around that time that attempted to apply an rpg system to a preexisting, commercial property: there was the Indiana Jones RPG, the Buck Rogers RPG, the Conan RPG, the Marvel Superheroes RPG, the Doctor Who RPG, the James Bond RPG, the Middle Earth RPG (which I thought was excellent), even the Teenage Mutant Fucking Ninja Turtles RPG. WTF! It was the ka-ching era. People wanted to roleplay inside their favorite fictions, or at least that was the idea. And part of that involves railroading to recreate or simulate the narrative experience of these fictions.

When I read the original promos for DL, I was inspired. It sounded great. Dragons, missing pantheons, armies on the march, demi-humans depicted in a different light...

I purchased DL1 the first day it showed up. I liked most of it, but I was very confused/dismayed at the heavy-handed inclusion of the pre-generated characters. I shrugged my shoulders and worked around it. Afterall, I had designed an adventure to get the characters in my current campaign into the DL world.

When DL2 came out I became more disappointed. What the hell was going on? DL3 pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

DL was a nice story. But that is about it. The module series is great if you want to replay the story. But I simply could not stand the forced play and what I like to call "hippie d&d." Peace, love, feathers and beards.

DL was a great idea that, in my simple opinion, went the wrong way. Instead of creating a unique and expansive campaign setting, it created a tiny sand box. I know TSR sold the crap out of them, but at that time DMs were starved for campaign specific products. Greyhawk had lots of modules but absolutely no continuity. DL had continuity on steriods. In the end, it was back to Greyhawk for me. Hands down.

Finally, don't get me wrong. I love ready to play modules. They make life easy for the busy DM. But modules that are so tight they basically force play, are not high on my play list.