From over at ENworld but not all of you post there so here is the link.
http://www.denofgeek.com/books-comics/dungeons-dragons/32990/chris-perkins-interview-dungeons-dragons-the-sundering-and-shared-worlds
Long story short do not hold your breath for Dragonlance.
LOL, of course not. They stole most of Dragonlance's thunder for the Tiamat Arc in Forgotten Realms...
Weirdest part of the whole thing was Perkins' announcing 6th edition.
Was that part of another interview, or am I just missing part of it?
Cause yeah, that'd be kinda awkward...
That interview was pretty uninformative. It is not as if Chris would be able to tell you much about Drizzt in any case.
No, no, just a dark joke at edition cycle publication & development.
bawylie wrote:
So I've never really gotten into the Realms much. As the interview states, the history of it all is a bit overwhelming. I do find it interesting though that they talked about how they wanted to change the Realms back to something that held familiar elements to the original way it was. It's interesting because I feel like this parallels what they did with 5th edition: find the core things people liked about D&D and build on that.
I still think that the Realms is too daunting to take on for gamers not familiar with that setting, even though WoTC has tried to make the adventures friendly for all players new and old. I have even heard seasoned DMs say things to the effect that they would not run Realms games because they know there are players out there who are Realms fanatics that would be difficult to have as players. Probably shouldn't detour people, and Realms fans should probably relax I supposed... but haven't we seen the Realms enough?
Why not bring back Mystara, Greyhawk and Dragonlance? I'm a huge Dragonlance fan, and time and again I have been disappointed that they keep bringing back the Realms instead of Dragonlance.
Sands666 wrote:
*Yawn*
Aside from his intimation that Dragonlance won't be on the cards any time soon, it was all just smoke and mirrors. Enough of this "We can't really talk about anything just yet" crap! Show us the money already, Chris! 
Zardnaar wrote:
justinj3x3 wrote:
justinj3x3 wrote:
You should view any campaign setting you purchase as your world from that moment onward. The basic campaign setting books will give you all you need. If you have a player that can't help himself when it comes to realms lore, you tell them they are on alternate forgotten realms #12.
justinj3x3 wrote:
justinj3x3 wrote:
About future crossovers my suggestion is the chronomancer (AD&D class), time dragons and the "time spheres" may be good hooks to create stories about alternative timelines and parallel worlds.
I feel like the lack of information was the interviewer's fault at least as much as Chris'.
Most of the questions were some variant on "Tell us this thing about the Forgotten Realms that you didn't write." and Chris says "well, I didn't write it, so here's a fairly generic response".
cowleymen wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
FR would be the perfect campaign setting if they wouldn't keep shoehorning mediocre quality comic-book style stories and characters into the canon of the core setting. The Time of Troubles all but ruined FR and it's tended to take 1 step forward, 2 steps back since then.
I mean seriously.
ankiyavon wrote:
I really like FR, but I just feel like there's too many things players "expect" to see since it's so established.
I really like FR, but I just feel like there's too many things players "expect" to see since it's so established.
Personally, I think there's something to be said for starting with a clean slate. I'm all for a new campaign setting instead of doing another rehash of an old campaign setting, with all of the baggage it entails.
Einlanzer wrote:
FR is too well established for my taste, and since we like to play by the raw and in the official , its way too much to learn.
Many ppl just adapt it to purpose , our group likes to play as close to raw as possible, so if something is too much to chew, its an issue.
REally i find alot of D&D players are like that, they dont like ignoring major offiical parts of a story or world narrative because its more convient.
Einlanzer wrote:
I think with your hobby having a little OCD does not mean you are OCD about everything in your life or that you have a serious problem. I'm OCD about television shows. I will not watch a show unless I watch it from the beginning and I will not skip an episode. So if I miss a show and the network doesn't put out something on on demand, I quit watching the show. Sometimes if I really love it I'll go on amazon and buy the missing episode. One thing is for sure I won't skip.
When it comes to D&D settings though I would not be OCD at all. Maybe we use the term OCD a bit loosely as gamers. Perhaps claiming OCD is just hyperbole.
Emerikol wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I've hear multiple people comment on how Dragonlance has already told the end all be all stories, and have criticized the setting as being out of potential because of this. One of those people was actually Chris Perkins himself. Seeing as he is the campaign bible creator for the current FR adventures, I have a feeling he is also the one with the strongest (or one of the strongest) voice for dictating what worlds they use. That being the case, his opinion about DL being out of potential may very well be the reason we will never see this setting evolve.
The idea that DL is out of potential is ludicrous, to me. The writers are still living and breathing, the fans are still out there talking about it, the elements of potential are all in place. For the fans of Dragonlance, the things they love can easily be reestablished if the writers breath new life into the story. I believe one of the writers even said she would be on board to create new stories for the setting! So what gives? Is it the opinions of a high ranking WoTC memeber? If you can renew something as repleted and burnt out as the Forgotten Realms, there should be absolutely no reason that you could not figure out a way to make Dragonlance, Mystara, or any other under represented setting in D&D renewed as well.
I admit I don't know all of the reasons they stick to FR, I mean who does with as clandestine as WoTC is about information (ie the interview found at the link in this thread). But I do feel that other settings have much potential and I feel FR is too saturated. I don't hate FR, I'm just tired of it being the go to game world personally.
But hey, we can all go to D&D classics and download the old pdfs and create our own additional content to these worlds! Maybe if it's good enough content, we can be considered highly enough to be rejected by WoTC ourselves. ;)
DL may just not be that popular these days or the setitng may be played out. I bet they are using the D&Dclassics sales as market research on what people will actually pay for.
Sands666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The biggest problem with Dragonlance is that the timeline between the Second Cataclysm and the War of Souls was complete and total garbage.
The setting lost an utterly massive amount of goodwill as a result of that filth.
That said, to Azzy, DL doesn't have any more real cataclysmic events than FR does.
The Cataclysm was about 300 years before the War of the Lance; it's background, not a real world change. (Compare to the fall of Netheril in Forgotten Realms.) That leaves the War of the Lance, the Second Cataclysm, and the War of Souls. (The 5th Age wasn't a cataclysm, it was a period of time, and frankly it should never have existed.) FR has the Time of Troubles, the Spellplague, and the Sundering. DL's don't map quite as neatly to edition changes, but there aren't any more of them, and there are significantly less of them if you restrict yourself to periods of time that are actually good. (Post-War of Souls is only vaguely acceptable to me. Everything right up to the end of the Second Cataclysm, including the war itself, is good stuff though.)
Azzy1974 wrote:
Iused to like DL but gave up after the 2nd Cataclysm. FR has really only had 2 RSE Krynn has had about 4. The War of the Lance was the main event and NPCs solved that.
Realms may be overdone but was not wrecked to the same extent except maybe the Spellplague.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
For me, the draw of Forgotten Realms was the rich tapestry of characters, history, gods, and sense of scale.
For Dark Sun, it was obviously the gritty, deadly world, the god-like Sorcerer Kings and the looming threat of THE DRAGON. Oh! And, cannibalistic haflings.
Ravenloft was an entire setting based on horror. Running Castle Ravenloft back in the day is one of my fondest memories of DnD.
For Eberron, it was its freshness. It's an original world that eschewed a lot of traditional fantasy tropes, flipped them on their heads, and did some genre mashing.
Dragonlance was the setting I played in the least. But, it was my introduction to DnD. I read one of those choose-your-own-adventure books as a kid. I can't recall the title exactly. Something about a crystal dragon, I think. I need to go and look that up. Anyway, that's what really brought me over into fantasy gaming.
That said, each of these settings has their own qualities. But, Forgotten Realms is the largest, most in-depth and currently the most popular of the all. This is why it is loved and hated. And, that's why you see it the most. Kinda like my Dallas Cowboys. ;) I would love to see 5E campaign settings for each of these worlds. But, if they're only going to do one or two, my preferences have already been listed above.
justinj3x3 wrote:
What is your opinion about fictional parallel worlds? The chronomancers were canon in AD&D, with the "time spheres", and the time dragons from the last printed Dragon Magazine. Maybe there is a alternative Krynn timeline where lord Soth avoid the cataclysm, or a green Arthas being invaded by alien spelljammers, or a hollow world (demiplane with prehistoric) being explored by people from Mystara and Greyhawk.
justinj3x3 wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
For me, any good campaign setting has to avoid being tied too tightly to any specific story. So Middle Earth is a poor campaign setting. The story was told.
The reason Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have stayed popular is that there are no defining stories lines in those worlds. Even Drizzt is just a minor shared world story. A very popular one but he is hardly shaking the foundations of reality. If they had avoided the time of troubles and the spell plague it would have been better yes. To me the spellplague though was far worse than the time of troubles only because of the enormity of the shake up.
When I run a D&D game, I never want my own players story to become THE story of the world. I try to keep the world big enough to encompass many stories. So my PCs stories are like Drizzt novels and not like a LoTR novel.