D&D and Dorks, Nerds, Social Stuff

I was lucky to find a good group in the last place I lived. After I moved the DM invited me into another group he runs games online for, using Fantasy Grounds. All strictly Pathfinder 1e - I’ve never played D&D 5e. My current character is a gnomish Aasimar arcanist - much more fun than a normal wizard!

I have a vague memory of reading a letter column (maybe in Dragon Magazine?) many years ago, where someone wrote a letter and mentioned their group was doing a Dragonlance campaign... and the entire party was comprised of kender.

The editor's response was a heartfelt 'OMG...".

:shifty:

:hide:
 
I was lucky to find a good group in the last place I lived. After I moved the DM invited me into another group he runs games online for, using Fantasy Grounds. All strictly Pathfinder 1e - I’ve never played D&D 5e. My current character is a gnomish Aasimar arcanist - much more fun than a normal wizard!

1E Pathfinders about the craziest D&D has ever gotten in terms of options.

Complex though.
 
I have a vague memory of reading a letter column (maybe in Dragon Magazine?) many years ago, where someone wrote a letter and mentioned their group was doing a Dragonlance campaign... and the entire party was comprised of kender.

The editor's response was a heartfelt 'OMG...".

:shifty:

:hide:

I hate Kender. I ban 3 races in my games. Kender, anything that flies and Kender.
 
I’ve never played a Dragonlance campaign, but my guess is that kender are like paladins - there’s nothing inherently obnoxious about them, it’s just that they’re very easy for weak players to play obnoxiously.

I think the biggest problem with kender, at least from my viewpoint as a reader of the books, is that they all have exactly the same personality. Even the dwarves in Dragonlance manage to have some (occasional) slight variations on the gruff-and-dour theme but all kender are completely indistinguishable. And in a game setting that must get pretty boring.
 
I’ve never played a Dragonlance campaign, but my guess is that kender are like paladins - there’s nothing inherently obnoxious about them, it’s just that they’re very easy for weak players to play obnoxiously.

I think the biggest problem with kender, at least from my viewpoint as a reader of the books, is that they all have exactly the same personality. Even the dwarves in Dragonlance manage to have some (occasional) slight variations on the gruff-and-dour theme but all kender are completely indistinguishable. And in a game setting that must get pretty boring.

They're worse than paladins a d tend to attract the worst players.

Having a kleptomaniac PC with the intellectual capacity of a stunted Gerbil is so much fun.
 
Kender in general are annoying, yes. But Tasslehoff does undergo some character development in the Twins trilogy.
 
I wouldn't want Chronicles Tasslehoff. But Legends Tasslehoff gains in maturity, and actually doesn't steal everything around him (he finally realizes that Raistlin could, and would, do some rather nasty things to him, given that Caramon and Tanis aren't there to run interference, not to mention that Raistlin has taken the Black Robes and does pretty much whatever the hell he wants at that point).

Actually, though, I tend to think of Dragonlance as a series of novels and stories and songs, rather than as a game. I have all the original modules plus a large number of source books, but the modules have a plot problem, not to mention a mapping problem.

Too much of the events of Winter Night foreshadow Spring Dawning, so when the events of Spring Dawning play out, they're not a surprise. And I wouldn't want to be the DM who guides the party through the foreshadowing part.

They should have put the Icewall events in the module and novel instead. I hate that most of the story of Gilthanas and Silvara happens "off-camera".


All that said, though, there's a rather nifty castle map in one of the Dragonlance supplemental books that would make a great setting for any AD&D adventure. Just swap out the Dragonlance-centric elements for whatever other setting you're in, and you're good to go.
 
I wouldn't want Chronicles Tasslehoff. But Legends Tasslehoff gains in maturity, and actually doesn't steal everything around him (he finally realizes that Raistlin could, and would, do some rather nasty things to him, given that Caramon and Tanis aren't there to run interference, not to mention that Raistlin has taken the Black Robes and does pretty much whatever the hell he wants at that point).

Actually, though, I tend to think of Dragonlance as a series of novels and stories and songs, rather than as a game. I have all the original modules plus a large number of source books, but the modules have a plot problem, not to mention a mapping problem.

Too much of the events of Winter Night foreshadow Spring Dawning, so when the events of Spring Dawning play out, they're not a surprise. And I wouldn't want to be the DM who guides the party through the foreshadowing part.

They should have put the Icewall events in the module and novel instead. I hate that most of the story of Gilthanas and Silvara happens "off-camera".


All that said, though, there's a rather nifty castle map in one of the Dragonlance supplemental books that would make a great setting for any AD&D adventure. Just swap out the Dragonlance-centric elements for whatever other setting you're in, and you're good to go.

Not a big Dragonlance fan tbh. They were marginal in 1993 when I first read them aged 14 or 15.

Tried releasing the first 3 not to long ago. Bleah.
 
I wasn't much into fantasy when I first read Dragons of Autumn Twilight. It was 1985 and the only fantasy fandom I was actively engaged in was the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. A friend let me borrow her copy, and so help me, I read it three times over in less than a month. Then I had to get my own copy, and it wasn't long after that when Winter Night and Spring Dawning came out. As with a lot of fandoms I really like, I did a deep dive into it - modules, novels, source books, the short stories published in Dragon Magazine (later reprinted in the anthology series), and I spent several days transcribing the sheet music in the modules so I could play the songs on the organ. One of the cool things about "Est Sularus" is that the lyrics are given in both English and Solamnic. I've got a medium-sized bookshelf containing nothing but Dragonlance paperbacks, and another for the modules, source books, and miscellaneous stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Oh, and Fighting Fantasy? Still into it, after 42 years. I co-admin a group on FB, and am thinking about maybe novelizing City of Thieves for my next NaNo project (in combination with my King's Heir project; I like to have two going at the same time, in case writer's block hits one of them). The only problem is where did I pack my dice? It shouldn't be hard to find two 6-sided dice, but the ones I already have are packed away and I can't find any in the stores. Don't people play Yahtzee anymore?
 
I wouldn't want Chronicles Tasslehoff. But Legends Tasslehoff gains in maturity, and actually doesn't steal everything around him (he finally realizes that Raistlin could, and would, do some rather nasty things to him, given that Caramon and Tanis aren't there to run interference, not to mention that Raistlin has taken the Black Robes and does pretty much whatever the hell he wants at that point).
Yes, but every time he appears *after* the Legends series (which he does far too often), any supposed character development he’s undergone is cheerfully ignored and he seems to be exactly as he was right at the start of the Chronicles.

I re-read the Dragonlance books quite recently (and read the Lost Chronicles for the first time, even the third, which is hard to find). Just the War of Souls ones to go (I only read the first of these the first time around). Only doing the Weiss/Hickman ones, of course. In many ways they still stand up pretty well. In others, not so much. I love Raistlin but did feel by the end of it that they’d wrung more out of that character than was reasonable (and not always very consistently), and same with Tasslehoff, with whom a little really goes a very long way. I’d have liked a bit more of Tanis, with whom I increasingly identify.
 
They should have put the Icewall events in the module and novel instead. I hate that most of the story of Gilthanas and Silvara happens "off-camera".
I really liked that. I thought it made the story feel much more real, as though we're following just one thread of a much wider narrative in a world where the main characters aren’t the only ones doing anything significant. A little like the First Age material in Lord of the Rings, but contemporary with the story, if you see what I mean.

I especially liked the bit where Theros is about to tell everyone the story of how he came to have the Silver Arm, and they just hush him, and we never find out. Maybe that’s in a module? I never had them. But for me it really created a sense of depth.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but every time he appears *after* the Legends series (which he does far too often), any supposed character development he’s undergone is cheerfully ignored and he seems to be exactly as he was right at the start of the Chronicles.

I re-read the Dragonlance books quite recently (and read the Lost Chronicles for the first time, even the third, which is hard to find). Just the War of Souls ones to go (I only read the first of these the first time around). Only doing the Weiss/Hickman ones, of course. In many ways they still stand up pretty well. In others, not so much. I love Raistlin but did feel by the end of it that they’d wrung more out of that character than was reasonable (and not always very consistently), and same with Tasslehoff, with whom a little really goes a very long way. I’d have liked a bit more of Tanis, with whom I increasingly identify.

:confused:

Yes, Tasslehoff is in a lot of the prequel books and short stories. But the only Weis/Hickman (aka canon) books I remember him being in are the Chronicles and Legends, plus the "Second Generation" anthology that bridges Spring Dawning and Summer Flame. And didn't he die in Summer Flame? Or am I thinking of another character? They killed off so many people in that book (was profoundly annoyed about Steel, as I liked him).

I haven't read much of the post-Summer Flames novels. I'm not sure I even have all of them. Crysania is one character who should have been killed off, in my not even remotely humble opinion, as I found her boring from the get-go.

Raistlin was my favorite character almost immediately, as he was interesting and not just a walking list of stats. I also liked Tanis, and I think it's safe to say that most of the Chronicles trilogy is actually from Tanis' point of view. We see his thoughts and perceptions of the others most often.


Have you read any of the Leaves From the Inn of the Last Home books? They have recipes for various dishes mentioned in the novels (including Gully Dwarf Stew and Otik's Fried Potatoes). The gaming group I was part of in college had a potluck party and the entire menu, from appetizers to desserts, was made from the recipes in this book. They worked fine.


I really liked that. I thought it made the story feel much more real, as though we're following just one thread of a much wider narrative in a world where the main characters aren’t the only ones doing anything significant. A little like the First Age material in Lord of the Rings, but contemporary with the story, if you see what I mean.

I especially liked the bit where Theros is about to tell everyone the story of how he came to have the Silver Arm, and they just hush him, and we never find out. Maybe that’s in a module? I never had them. But for me it really created a sense of depth.

Any of the Chronicles events that happened "off-camera" in the novels were covered in a module, as long as they involved a dragon... mostly. Gilthanas and Silvara's story (the doomed love part) wasn't, to the best of my recollection. But it's been nearly 40 years since I seriously read those, and I'd have to take another look to be sure. I do remember being annoyed about it, because Gilthanas was another character I liked.

I guess to a fanfiction reader/writer, no detail is too trivial or mysterious to want to explore it, and have some kind of story about it.

Reading modules for actual story can be frustrating at times. There's so much math and stats to wade through, sifting it for what the PCs are supposed to do if they're to succeed. And since the original 12 modules (each featuring a different dragon) have a connected plot, the players can't go off the rails too far (the modules offer suggestions to the DM of how to guide them back to the main plot).

That's another reason why I enjoyed the Legends books - they're not based on modules, and the authors and readers can just get on with the story.

There is one major goof that Weis and Hickman made, though, again in my not at all humble opinion. There was a story that was published in Dragon Magazine before it turned up in one of the prequel anthologies - the encounter Raistlin had with a mysterious woman in the forest, not long after his Test in the Tower of High Sorcery. The result of that was supposed to be that Raistlin had a daughter, who turned out to be Usha.

They retconned that in Dragons of Summer Flame, and that really annoyed me. Usha wasn't very likeable much of the time, and I guess W&H realized that if she was Raistlin's daughter, they couldn't pair her with Palin (cousin marriage). It just seems unfair that they didn't let Raistlin have any children, like most of the others did.
 
:confused:

Yes, Tasslehoff is in a lot of the prequel books and short stories. But the only Weis/Hickman (aka canon) books I remember him being in are the Chronicles and Legends, plus the "Second Generation" anthology that bridges Spring Dawning and Summer Flame. And didn't he die in Summer Flame? Or am I thinking of another character? They killed off so many people in that book (was profoundly annoyed about Steel, as I liked him).
He gets killed off at the end of Summer Flame, and then brought back at the start of Fallen Sun.

I found Steel extremely annoying, because I couldn’t understand what the motivation could be for an incredibly honourable character to be completely devoted to a profoundly dishonourable deity. I quite liked the basic idea of creating a character who is very honourable and yet also evil, but I don’t think it really made sense - perhaps this just reflects the basic incoherence of the Lawful Evil alignment itself.

Have you read any of the Leaves From the Inn of the Last Home books? They have recipes for various dishes mentioned in the novels (including Gully Dwarf Stew and Otik's Fried Potatoes). The gaming group I was part of in college had a potluck party and the entire menu, from appetizers to desserts, was made from the recipes in this book. They worked fine.
No, although I have found recipes for Otik’s potatoes online!
There is one major goof that Weis and Hickman made, though, again in my not at all humble opinion. There was a story that was published in Dragon Magazine before it turned up in one of the prequel anthologies - the encounter Raistlin had with a mysterious woman in the forest, not long after his Test in the Tower of High Sorcery. The result of that was supposed to be that Raistlin had a daughter, who turned out to be Usha.


They retconned that in Dragons of Summer Flame, and that really annoyed me. Usha wasn't very likeable much of the time, and I guess W&H realized that if she was Raistlin's daughter, they couldn't pair her with Palin (cousin marriage). It just seems unfair that they didn't let Raistlin have any children, like most of the others did.
Why would he want children, though? Not everyone does! And much of the point of Raistlin’s arc is that he consciously and deliberately turns his back on all the “normal” sources of happiness in favour of his quest for power. (Though it’s never really explained *why* he’s so obsessed with acquiring ultimate power in the first place. Is it really just because he gets bullied as a child?)

I quite liked the way the story of Raistlin’s daughter is, in its initial publication, presented as just a legend that may or may not be “true”, and is later shown not to be. (Or, at least, it *could* still be true, it’s just not Usha.) It subverts the tired trope of “all legends are true” that you usually get in fantasy. They also took a swipe at the idea in Darkness and Light that Sturm and Kitiara went to Lunitari, effectively turning that into an apocryphal legend as well. Which I quite appreciated, because although I loved that book at the time, it was absolutely ludicrous.
 
I didn't mind Steel and the arc made sense.

LE can include honor. Honor can be abused after all.
 
Last edited:
O didn't mind Steel and the arc made sense.

LE cam include honor. Honor can be abused after all.
Maybe. But I think the problem with Steel in particular is that he seems to be entirely honourable. He never abuses that honour or uses it as an excuse to act cruelly. In fact there seems to be nothing "evil" about him at all. He's not particularly pleasant, but his personality is pretty much the same as Sturm's. The only difference is that he serves a deity who is evil (not to mention chaotic), but that doesn't make a person evil, just misguided.

To be fair, this is just a symptom of the fundamentally broken and incoherent alignment system as it functions in Dragonlance. The problem isn't really Steel himself, it's a worldview which tries to present "good" and "evil" as equally necessary and legitimate value systems while at the same time celebrating "good" behaviour and condemning "evil" behaviour. Steel is supposed to be an example of a character who is "evil, but that's OK", in line with the official moral philosophy of the Dragonlance universe, but they take such pains to emphasise his OK-ness that there's no real sense of his being evil at all.
 
Maybe. But I think the problem with Steel in particular is that he seems to be entirely honourable. He never abuses that honour or uses it as an excuse to act cruelly. In fact there seems to be nothing "evil" about him at all. He's not particularly pleasant, but his personality is pretty much the same as Sturm's. The only difference is that he serves a deity who is evil (not to mention chaotic), but that doesn't make a person evil, just misguided.

To be fair, this is just a symptom of the fundamentally broken and incoherent alignment system as it functions in Dragonlance. The problem isn't really Steel himself, it's a worldview which tries to present "good" and "evil" as equally necessary and legitimate value systems while at the same time celebrating "good" behaviour and condemning "evil" behaviour.

Takhisis is LE.

Latter her knights revert to form Steel was an exception.

I gave up after Summer Flame.
 
So she is! I honestly thought she was CE. She certainly acts chaotically (never sticking to agreements, for example). I see though that there are already substantial arguments online about this...

Yeah she's also the queen of chaos go figure.

Also see Takhisis as Tiamat arguments.

Personally I think she was envisioned as similar to Tiamat but by mid 90s they pushed the LE part more.
 
Maybe. But I think the problem with Steel in particular is that he seems to be entirely honourable. He never abuses that honour or uses it as an excuse to act cruelly. In fact there seems to be nothing "evil" about him at all. He's not particularly pleasant, but his personality is pretty much the same as Sturm's. The only difference is that he serves a deity who is evil (not to mention chaotic), but that doesn't make a person evil, just misguided.

To be fair, this is just a symptom of the fundamentally broken and incoherent alignment system as it functions in Dragonlance. The problem isn't really Steel himself, it's a worldview which tries to present "good" and "evil" as equally necessary and legitimate value systems while at the same time celebrating "good" behaviour and condemning "evil" behaviour. Steel is supposed to be an example of a character who is "evil, but that's OK", in line with the official moral philosophy of the Dragonlance universe, but they take such pains to emphasise his OK-ness that there's no real sense of his being evil at all.
I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, per se, but the D&D alignment system always chafed at me and my players. We kind of settled on the notion that Evil-with-a-capital-E was a state of being and an energy that was inimical to the 'good' races. Necromancy, therefore, was a form of magic that tapped into that energy, and super-dangerous to the user. Beings like Demons and Devils were beings native to planes of existence where that energy - Evil - was innate, sort of in the same way most humans and demi-humans can't live in the ocean because they can't breathe water. Pure Evil was almost a form of radiation. Undead were 'powered' by Evil - animated by it, in the case of the mindless undead (zombie; skeletons; ghosts) or the feral undead (wights; ghouls; wraiths); empowered by it, in the case of the intelligent undead. Necromancers and demonic cultists embraced Evil in order to gain power, and it frequently warped them, such as with liches, death knights, and some vampires. Humans and demi-humans who were greedy, venal, power-hungry, violent, or selfish were malignant, but not Evil.

More on my interpretation of Evil in my D&D games. No spoilers, but a long-ish spiel.
Spoiler :
I also decided, as a DM, that beings of pure Evil had a hard time living in our world, just as we would have a hard time living in theirs. That's what prevented them from taking over. Demons and devils possessed people and tempted people because they found it draining to exist in our world, in their natural forms. That's also why the more powerful undead were burned by sunlight - as their link to Evil got stronger, they got more powerful, but they also found it more difficult to exist in our world, and they couldn't go outside during the day. This also meant the more powerful undead were more susceptible to being Turned than weaker undead. A person of faith - you didn't even have to be a Cleric - could keep a vampire or a lich at bay with a holy symbol, or by reaching consecrated ground. Of course, a Lich or a Vampire doesn't have to get their hands on you to be a threat - keeping them at arm's length was only a temporary solution. (And I decided Clerics couldn't destroy powerful undead by Turning. I didn't want it to be that easy. I didn't want my party's Cleric to just immolate Valek or Count Dracula. That'd be no fun. A crowd of zombies? Okay, sure, but I wanted them to have to be a little more clever to defeat The Big Bad.)

I was heavily influenced by the movies of John Carpenter. Specifically The Fog (1980) and Prince of Darkness (1987). Later on, Carpenter's Vampires (1998), too. I once helped a player who was reluctant to play a Paladin by having him watch Vampires and telling him that Jack Crow was a valid interpretation of what a D&D Paladin might be like, if he didn't like the "upright shining knight" archetype.

This also gave me an "out" for why the energy-draining undead didn't spread like wildfire. The Evil weakened over time if it wasn't reinforced by, say, unholy ground, or a shrine or a dimensional portal radiating negative energy. A wraith or a wight could live forever inside a dungeon or temple of Evil, but they couldn't just go wherever they pleased, whenever they pleased. I also decided that when an energy-draining undead killed someone, the victim rose as the next-weakest type of undead. A Wight would kill 1 0-level NPC every turn, with a single strike. According to the game, every one of those people should rise as a Wight in a few minutes. Okay, that would be the end of the world, right there, starting with a single Wight getting inside a city or large town. So I decided that the Evil had to fade a little with each generation of undead: The victim of a Master Vampire would rise as a Vampire; the victim of a Vampire would rise as a Wight; the victim of a Wight would rise as a Ghoul; and the victim of a Ghoul would rise as a Zombie (victims of Zombies didn't rise at all, they were just dead).

About 20 years ago, I wrote a D&D adventure that I never got a chance to try out: A villain rolled a cage containing a single wight up to the back door of a tavern full of people, and then opened the cage. A weapon of mass destruction, designed to wipe out the town. Within a few minutes, mayhem erupted inside the tavern. People at the back of the tavern were being slaughtered before the people at the front of the tavern even knew anything unusual was happening. Within 5 minutes, there were 2-3 Ghouls rising, in addition to the original Wight, who of course was still going. In 10 minutes, most of the people who were in that tavern were dead and seeking more victims. A few people managed to get out the doors and windows with ghouls at their heels, and now there were zombies rising as well. Not long after that, the player-characters would have arrived at the gates of the town, wondering why all the screaming. You might already be able to guess what the name of the adventure was: 28 Minutes Later...


EDIT: I went and looked up 2nd-ed. Wights, because I couldn't remember how many attacks they got. It's only 1. But then I looked at 5th-ed. Wights and they've made them much less virulent. In 5th-ed. someone hit by a Wight's Life Drain is allowed a DC13 CON check, and anyone slain by the Life Drain rises 24 hours later as a Zombie. So the World War Z-style wildfire of wights that you could get in earlier editions isn't really possible. A single Wight could still sow chaos, but it's not quite so insane. A Wight who went undetected in a population center would create a Walking Dead-style zombie outbreak, rather than a World War Z-style outbreak of Ghouls. (In D&D parlance, slow zombies from the movies are Zombies and fast zombies from the movies are Ghouls.)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom