D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Nivenus]

This is not correct. The "Great Wheel" was first mentioned in Dragon Magazine #8 (July 1977).

My mistake. But as you will yourself admit, the Great Wheel was presented very early in D&D and so has a long history that does not make it "intrinsic" to Planescape or antithetical to the spirit of D&D. Indeed, the fact that it was included in one of the core rulebooks (even in appendix, which is also the case for 5e) indicates that while it may not have been considered "essential" or "required," it was definitely considered "core."ted within the Great Wheel framework.

MotP was published in 1987. That is 10 years after Dragon #8 and 8 years after the publication of the final core AD&D rulebook. MotP is not "canon", any more than DDG is "canon" - it is an optional supplement that most players of the original AD&D game would not have purchased or probably even heard of.

It was canon to Greyhawk, so I think it's fair to say it was canon to D&D, given Greyhawk's status as the preeminent "default" setting before 4e. I mean, how else are you going define canonical?

Besides which, the foreword to MotP indicates it was intended to be fairly widely applicable:

The AD&D system over the years has treated the known planes of existence as holding bins for every idea and adventure that did not quite belong in the Prime Material Plane... With additional books of monsters, we moved all manner of slaad, modrons, and githyanki into these planes as visitors, then moved entire pantheons to co-exist in the Legends and Lore book. And for every adventure in every plane, another set of effects on spell-casting was created.

This then, has been the AD&D game closet; like Fibber McGee's, it is filled to capacity with the well-intended thoughts of a decade.

And I have the pleasurable task of throwing open the door and (provided I am not crushed by the bowling ball on the top shelf)
picking through and explaining the pieces.

It is a massive task. Consider, for example, that the planes are infinite (except the demi-planes, but that's another story). Can these
regions be mapped? How do the Hells appear to descend and the Heavens to rise? Where do the gods of the ancient pantheons
live? Do they get along with each other? What about other life on those planes (gods need servants, after all)? How do you travel
through an infinite plane filled with elemental fire? Indeed, how do you even survive on an infinite plane filled with elemental fire?

This book attempts to answer these questions and many more. One of the basic assumptions of this tome is that what has been
written in the past is true, and our job is to explain it. The chief reason is that the AD&D system is a living and dynamic system
that is built upon the foundation of its past. While the game can absorb any amount of new material, casting off pre-existing
material often damages the system. My purpose is to reveal the mysteries of the AD&D game without voiding a majority of them.

The intent is clear, the MotP is intended to be the definitive source for all things planar in 1st edition D&D, at least insofar as basic, widely held assumptions go. Now, I don't agree that all settings should use the cosmology. As I have said before, I hope 5e (like 3e) supports a wide number of potential models. But the fact remains that the Great Wheel (and the Manual of the Planes which detailed it) was intended to be widely applicable across all of 1e.

OMG! So much confusion. Surely that would mean doomsday with cats and dogs living together. Call one 'celestial archon' and the other 'elemental archon.' Done. Or would the use of adjectival descriptors confuse your players and wiki editors too much?

That is what we do. But it's a rare thing for monsters of completely different natures to have the same name, would you not agree? Aside from chromatic and metallic dragons (which are still both essentially dragons) I'm not sure I can think of an example. For simplicity's sake it's better that they have different names. Which is what I expect WotC will do if they decide to incorporate both.

And? This seems to be as big of a deal as having different people with the title of 'king' or 'prince' in a setting.

It's not even remotely the same. One is a generic title that is expected to apply to different people. Another is a species name. It's more like having the word "octopus" apply both to an aquatic cephalopod and a flying mammal.

And, really, if it was just the Blood War that made it over to the core of the game, I'd be pretty happy. It was certainly a cool idea when I first saw it. But, Planescape became the over-setting and thus all planar material had to then follow Planescape canon, no matter what. That's why I keep bringing up Planescape. You really can't separate the Great Wheel from Planescape anymore. Planescape completely took over all the Great Wheel and all things planar.

Considering Planescape didn't exist in 1e (but the Great Wheel did) and wasn't supported in 3e, I find this questionable. Certainly the two are very closely connected, but so are a lot of basic assumptions of Greyhawk that have worked their way into non-setting specific material. The example of "Yondalla" several pages back is one such case, as is the existence of shared dwarven and elven deities across multiple settings. I'm not a huge fan of forcing everything to be core, but the truth is that Planescape is hardly unique in this category.

For example, I could probably sell a module to Dungeon magazine (presuming it comes back) that features an orc tribe that is working with an elf group, presuming the module was interesting enough. It's a generic, setting free adventure. But, I will never, ever be able to sell a module to Dungeon where a demon has three modron body guards and is working for a devil. It will just never, ever happen because it violates too much canon. I can never buy a supplement which features planar elements that doesn't obey Planescape lore, because, as you say, Planescape is now the default setting.

Actually, I'm not sure that's accurate. The Blood War's a general rule for demons and devils relationships. I've actually seen more than a few stories where the two do occasionally work together (though rarely of their own accord). Honestly, I don't see it as any more difficult than imagining a scenario where devils and (celestial) archons might work together - not likely but not impossible either.

I never had a real problem with Greyhawk as default because Greyhawk is so generic that it can be plopped pretty much anywhere. PS is not generic. It is a very specific setting. People love it and that's great. I just wish that for gamers like me, who aren't interested in PS, that we could get planar supplements that weren't forced to follow a single setting.

Greyhawk seems generic only because the rest of D&D is built upon it. A lot of the tropes Greyhawk and generic D&D share were not altogether common in fantasy before either came along. Greyhawk's seemingly non-intrusive nature is just a result of it having been designed by Gary Gygax, who was also the chief designer of D&D.

The first time I used a nycadaemon it was allied with both a demon and devil to try to advance the cause of an evil god. There seemed to me that there was no greater barrier to demons and devils cooperating than dwarves and elves - and everyone knows that in extremes dwarves and elves will align against orcs and ogres, whereas we never see elves and ogres aligning against dwarves and (LE) orcs!

I say that's more for a lack of imagination in the use of elves and ogres than anything else. As I said above, I can see devils and demons working together for specific purposes. It's just not going to happen very often (nor do I think it should, given the prevalence of law vs. chaos as an equal conflict to good vs. evil).

When I later acquired a copy of D3, I saw that, in it, mezzodaemons and nycadaemons were hanging out in the Vault much like demons. 4e's treatment harks back to that. (And that is no obstacle to nycadaemons playing both sides for those who want it - for instance, a nycadaemon could ally with a force of devils to betray a force of demons fighting on the Plane of 1000 Portals. Nothing in 4e makes that sort of scenario impossible.)

No, it's not. But it does strike me that the argument that "daemons were originally just another kind of demon" is pretty obviously false in light of the fact that the 1e lore reads closer to the 2e lore than it does the 4e lore.
This all rests on premises that I don't really accept.

For instance, I don't agree with your contrast between "continuation" and "adaptation". Todd McFarlane's Peter Parker married to Mary Jane is not in any meaningful sense a continuation of Ditko's nerdy photo-journalist getting beaten up by Flash Thompson. They're different riffs on the same character and his tropes.

To a certain extent you are correct. The characters of Marvel Comics and other long running continuities do essentially change as new writers and artists take the wheel. All the same, Earth-616 today is still Earth-616, not Earth-1610 or any of the other numerous Marvel universes. Moffat's Doctor Who may be markedly different from the original 1960s show with William Hartnell or even RTD's relatively recent take on the series, but it's still the same show and there is a sense of continuity from the beginning to the end, with callbacks, references, and recurring characters.

But adaptations aren't quite the same thing because again, there's no shared continuity (and I mean this in the sense of "continuing" the story and the themes rather than a literal timeline of events). No one is expecting the X-Men movies to match the comics' storylines precisely (well, outside of a few really impractical fans). It is expected that events will be reinterpreted and reshaped to fit the movies' needs. Besides the fact that they are in some ways starting from scratch there's also the fact that the stories have to be molded to suit the purpose of an entirely different medium: film instead of comics.

On the other hand, each edition of D&D is a pen and paper RPG, played in very much the same way (with a few changes) as it was decades ago. There's no transition from medium to medium. There's no need to "start from scratch" because you're retelling the same story. Instead, each edition simply built (or did, until 4e) on what the previous editions had already done. There were reinterpretations of course, but they were small and gradual changes, like those that occur (for example) when one writer leaves a comic book and is replaced by another. The changes you described in the Spider-Man comics occurred over decades of time, just as the changes from 1e to 3e did. The changes from 3e to 4e though, occurred immediately and were more akin to an adaptation, as they took what existed it and reimagined it as something else.

I've never heard any of the criticism of First Class that you mention. They don't resonate with me at all. The point of the movies (or the comics) isn't, primarily, to present a history of an alternative universe. It's to tell stories, with the alternative universe background being a tool to that end.

I'm actually genuinely surprised. I don't agree with many of these criticisms, but I've hear them all the time.

But that's beside the point.

4e didn't render past material "invalid". Material doesn't become invalid, because there is no relevant test of validity. It is all just story elements for use in an RPG. Did the Caves of Chaos become "invalid" when AD&D rewrote most of those humanoids as LE? Was its validity partially restored when 3E rewrote orcs as CE?

If new material says past material is "wrong" than yes, it does make the past material invalid.

I think it depends to a certain extent whether you consider the lore part of an established world or not. Again, this comes back to the setting thing and while I get that's not an issue for you the fact remains that WotC and TSR have both historically implemented "core" lore in specific settings.

As something of an aside, 4e doesn't have a metaplot - all the material you mention has already happened in the default setting, and is part of the background known by the players.

It absolutely is a metaplot. The Dawn War and the details of 4e's cosmology in form a lot of what's going on in the world, not only in the default setting but in the Forgotten Realms as well. The conflict between elementals and immortals is considered just as essential in 4e as the conflict between demons and devils was in 2e/3e (indeed, the former's used to quasi-justify the latter). I don't see how you can say it isn't.

The bottom line, for me, is that TSR/WotC is not engaged in worldbuilding. They are presenting me (and other D&D players) with the material to put together my (our) games.

But they objectively were and are. I honestly don't get how you see it otherwise. Yes, there's definitely a lot of allowance for a DM and players to reinterpret things as they wish, but if TSR and WotC aren't worldbuilding than they're wasting a lot of words doing something that looks an awful lot like worldbuilding.

No. I'm saying that a version of the game that develops AD&D assumptions in a certain direction isn't "disrespecting" or "disregarding" what came before. It is building on it.

It's building on it by disregarding the following 2 editions. Again I'm not comfortable using the word "disrespect" here as that feels too judgmental to me. But absolutely there was a major shift to something different than what came before. D&D was, for lack of a better word, "rebooted."

Let me be more specific.

If I wanted to describe Acheron as a realm of post apocalyptic cities, no flying cubes at all, what would my chances of getting published be?

After all, that does not run counter to any core D&D material. The plane of Acheron is not really described anywhere but in a Planescape specific manual (the Planewalker's Handbook, 1996, according to Wikipedia). So, what would my chances be?

Considering that Acheron was described as a plane of floating cubes as early as the 1st edition Manual of the Planes I don't see how that's actually Planescape-specific.

Acheron is divided into four layers, each layer stressing order over evil, the group over the individual. Each layer consists of huge blocks that drift together, join for a time, then part again. These blocks are the size of nations, yet when they collide thereare no tremors. While blocks are joined, beings can change blocks and travel with the new block as it drifts off. Gravity is toward the center of each block; the medium between the blocks can be considered to be air for purposes of breathing and flying.

That isn't to say your interpretation isn't necessarily an valid one. But again, I don't get where the idea that all of this stuff originated with Planescape comes from when it clearly didn't.

 

[The Shadow]

Much like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , my dislike of Planescape has multiple reasons - some petty, some serious. The cant grates on my nerves. Part of this is just personal taste, and therefore petty. But there's something more...

I'd point out though that the intent of the cant isn't to evoke a planar otherworld, but precisely the opposite -- to make it jaded and casual. The language of PS is the language of vernacular, of the "common tongue," of slang and dirty jokes in the oily back-alley. It's part of the feel of PS because PS is, in part, about taking those grand ideas that are discussed in high arcane jargon by proper folk and skewering them.

And that's the something more. The setting takes something which (to my own mythic imagination) should be rare and wondrous, and turns it into just another place to go. 'Jaded and casual' is not an attitude I want to encourage toward a fantasy world.

IMXP, the experience of play in Planescape is one of re-shaping reality according to the ideals you hold. "Exploration" in terms of "go somewhere cool, do some goal there, come home" is best used in service of that ideal, meaning that the context for "lets go visit a dead god" should be, for instance, "to discover the source of its power and use this for our own purposes."

Infinity is their plaything.

Again, this is an element that really rubs me the wrong way, both aesthetically and philosophically. (I'm not a professional philosopher like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , I just play one at home. ) The idea that the great mythic wellsprings of the world are up for grabs, that they are less real than the material world, goes so completely against my grain that I don't find it fun. The strain of twisting my brain into that shape is just not worth the effort.

Give me the Little Prince for my money - "What is most important is not visible to the eye."

And while the idea of a place like Sigil, a city of doors to all sorts of places, is indeed really cool; it makes no mythic sense for me for it to be at the very center of the multiverse and off-limits to the gods themselves. (Of course, this is starting to edge into my vast distaste for the whole Great Wheel, not Planescape per se.)

I don't know that this matches the modules much. To be honest, most 2e-era adventures are not great, and even the best suffer from deep flaws, regardless of the setting they were for. I never paid much attention to the adventures for PS.

I recall looking over one of the PS modules (don't remember what it was called) and being aghast at how horribly railroady and de-protagonizing it was - the PC's were basically there to be forcibly taken on a grand tour of the planes and be jabbered at.

But in fairness, you're right - a lot of the adventures back then were terrible, it certainly wasn't unique to Planescape.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=71756]Nivenus[/MENTION], I think we have very different ideas about both the history of the game, and what it is about. That's not an objection to your posts, just a tentative observation.

the Great Wheel was presented very early in D&D and so has a long history that does not make it "intrinsic" to Planescape or antithetical to the spirit of D&D. Indeed, the fact that it was included in one of the core rulebooks (even in appendix, which is also the case for 5e) indicates that while it may not have been considered "essential" or "required," it was definitely considered "core."

<snip>

It was canon to Greyhawk

The Great Wheel is not presented as "core" (whatever exactly that meant in 1978). It was presented as an optional appendix, like psionics and the bard class.

Nor was it in any serious way canonical to Greyhawk as a published campaign setting. I have both the original Greyhawk folio and the original boxed set. The former, to the best of my recollection, makes no references to the Great Wheel or planar matters at all. The latter has some god write-ups, in the DDG format, and so they list home planes in the same way that DDG does. But the only significant planar concepts it uses are those relevant to describing the 4 quasi/hero-deities - which is to say, the possibility of travel to the Wild West (Murlynd) is much more canonical than the Great Wheel. (And the significance of "demiplanes" and parallel worlds ahead of the Great Wheel is reinforced by such scenarios as EX1 and 2 and The Isle of the Ape. When "Return of the Eight" needs an alternative plane it sends events to the moon, not out into the Great Wheel.)

I don't remember any significant planar content in the City of Greyhawk boxed set either. The module "Vecna Lives" incorporate the Plane of Ash, but the relevant location (Kas's citadel, from memory) could easily be moved to some other extra-dimensional location without loss of content, context or continuity. The Demonweb Pits in Q1 could likewise be an extra-dimensional place where Lolth hangs out. Iuz, Graz'zt and Fraz Urb'luu are demons, but nothing about their role in these Greyhawk materials requires the Abyss to take the particular character and structure it has in the Great Wheel (and Fraz Urb'luu, at least, was invented as part of Greyhawk well before the Great Wheel was conceived of).

The Great Wheel is utterly peripheral to all of this Greyhawk material. I have run games set in Greyhawk for around 15 of the past 30 years. The maps are canonical. The Suel and Baklun empires are canonical. If you want to sever the link between Greyahwk's vikings and the Suel empire (as I do) you have to rewrite or ignore descriptions of kingdoms, languages and cultures. But ignoring the Great Wheel is utterly trivial, as it plays no meaningful role in any of the core published material that I can think of.

I think it's fair to say it was canon to D&D, given Greyhawk's status as the preeminent "default" setting before 4e. I mean, how else are you going define canonical?

<snip>

the MotP is intended to be the definitive source for all things planar in 1st edition D&D, at least insofar as basic, widely held assumptions go.

The MotP, among other things, describes the residences of a whole range of gods (taken from DDG). No Greyhawk material references those gods or generates any assumption that they are part of Greyhawk's cosmology or Greyhawk canon. In fact, none of the gods described in DDG are part of Greyhawk, as per the published materials I am familiar with, except the non-human ones.

This is just another respect in which the MotP does not establish Greyhawk canon, and is obviously optional rather than default or "canonical" with respect to D&D as such.

Planescape didn't exist in 1e (but the Great Wheel did) and wasn't supported in 3e

Planescape was supported by at least two 3E books I can think of: MotP, and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

given the prevalence of law vs. chaos as an equal conflict to good vs. evil)

Outside of Planescape I'm not sure where you see this prevalence. It is not part of AD&D, which posits the divide between Good and Evil as more fundamental (look eg at the paladin and assassin classes, and also at the way demi-humans and humanoids are presented). It is not part of Greyhawk - there are alliances between dwarves and elves (eg the Ulek states) but not between either of those peoples and orcs or goblins.

The characters of Marvel Comics and other long running continuities do essentially change as new writers and artists take the wheel. All the same, Earth-616 today is still Earth-616, not Earth-1610 or any of the other numerous Marvel universes. Moffat's Doctor Who may be markedly different from the original 1960s show with William Hartnell or even RTD's relatively recent take on the series, but it's still the same show and there is a sense of continuity from the beginning to the end, with callbacks, references, and recurring characters.

<snip>

No one is expecting the X-Men movies to match the comics' storylines precisely (well, outside of a few really impractical fans). It is expected that events will be reinterpreted and reshaped to fit the movies' needs.

My point is that no reasonable person expects Todd McFarlane's Peter Parker to match Ditko's either. Just to give one trivial example, Peter Parker lives through decades of changes in fashion and technology while aging only 15 years or so. (In that respect he's like the Hardy Boys, who as an 18 and 17 year old (? going from memory here) cram more than one week-long adventure per day into their school break.)

This is why Marvel invented the no-prize - to tip the hat to those who worry about continuity while getting on with writing stories. (Perhaps WotC should hold a competition to award a no-prize to the best fan explanation of how angelic beings from Mt Celestia suddenly found themselves being forged into elemental warriors by the Primordials.)

each edition of D&D is a pen and paper RPG, played in very much the same way (with a few changes) as it was decades ago. There's no transition from medium to medium. There's no need to "start from scratch" because you're retelling the same story. Instead, each edition simply built (or did, until 4e) on what the previous editions had already done

<snip>

If new material says past material is "wrong" than yes, it does make the past material invalid.

<snip>

But they objectively were and are [worldbuilding]. I honestly don't get how you see it otherwise.

<snip>

absolutely there was a major shift to something different than what came before. D&D was, for lack of a better word, "rebooted."

As I have said, I don't think that writing a Monster Manual, or describing a PC race, is worldbuilding. It is putting forward story elements for players to use in running their games. New story elements, or reinterpretations/re-presentations of prior story elements are just that. They don't "invalidate" the past presentations of story elements. Nothing in 4e is a comment on Planescape or the Great Wheel, let alone a declaration that it is "wrong". I'm not even sure what that would look like.

They just present new stuff. Anyone who wants to use Celestial archons in his/her 4e game has an hour or two's work to do converting them (if conversion is even needed - in many circumstances it probably isn't, because the PCs probably aren't going to come into violent conflict with them, and that's really the only time a 4e statblock is needed for a monster).

Your insistence that "absolutely" there was a major shift is just having us going round in circles. Your criteria for "major shift" are my minor details. To give another illustration: when 3E changed orcs from LE to CE, someone from WotC (maybe Sean Reynolds?) posted something on the WotC website saying "In our games orcs have always been more wild and chaotic than militaristic like hobgoblins, and so we're changing their alignment from LE to CE." I'm sure some people were outraged, but I don't remember an internet frenzy. (Maybe there was and I've just forgotten it, or missed it at the time.) To my mind, changing eladrin from celestial elves who live in elf-heaven to magical fey beings whose nobles and rulers are the kings and queens of faerieland is in the same category. It is shifting around the details to try and better catch what the creature is suited to as an element for play. When using older material it requires inserting "noble" before any instance of "eladrin" - because now we have non-noble eldarin who are high elves - but that is not a huge challenge to anyone familiar with both the old and the new material. Any more than someone using old stuff about orcs that trades on the Lawful Evil-ness, and who cares about such detail, has to do some minor re-writing.

A major shift would be, for instance, stipulating as a default that orc and goblin spirits are allies, rather than enemies, in the afterlife; or that dwarves are friends with giants; or that Bahamut is the god of the dead. Changes to actual theme and trope.

(I am not talking here about 4e changes to FR. As I said upthread, I have never played in the FR and know comparatively little about it. My general impression, though, is that both TSR and WotC tend not to say that earlier FR material was "wrong", and rather jump through tortuous plot hoops to bring the world into conformity with new material by way of "Realms-shaking events". I personally think the approach of the Living Greyhawk gazetteer is more sensible: I've never seen it suggested that the labelling of some Greyhawk personages in that book as Aristocrats, for instance, invalidated what had come before. It was just using the mechanical tools of 3E to try and describe the same fiction. By virtue of a similar methodology I have managed to run games set in GH using AD&D, 3E, two variations of Rolemaster, and Burning Wheel, without the need for "cosmology-shattering events".)

WotC and TSR have both historically implemented "core" lore in specific settings.

If this becomes a reason never to change any core lore, that is a terrible case of the tail wagging the dog.

It absolutely is a metaplot. The Dawn War and the details of 4e's cosmology in form a lot of what's going on in the world

The Dawn War and 4e's cosmology are backstory. They are not metaplot (unless you are using "metaplot" as a synonym for "backstory".) There is no 4e metaplot. For instance, is the Dusk War going to happen? If it happens, who will win it? Will Asmodeus recover the shard of evil? Will Erathis rebuild the Lattice of Heaven? Will the Far Realm swallow up the world?

These are some of the main questions raised by the 4e backstory. None of the 4e sourcebooks is premised on any sort of answer to any of them. There is no metaplot; or, to borrow language from Wikipedia, there is no "overarching storyline that binds together events in the official continuity of [the] published role-playing game campaign setting [such as m]ajor official story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another". That is because there is no overarching storyline, no official continuity, no major official story events that change the world, no mandated "movement of important NPCs from one place to another". There is backstory, and then there is play. There is no attempt by the 4e authors or designers, in either their core material or their supplements, to dictate what the story consequences of play shall be.

(I first made this point about 4e in this post about The Plane Above.)

I'm actually genuinely surprised. I don't agree with many of these criticisms, but I've hear them all the time.

I don't think I've ever been to any of those websites before. They don't seem to be focusing on what I care about when I watch a movie (X-Men or otherwise).

Those sorts of comments remind me of this post a few years ago by Mallus:

Sometimes, in these discussions, I get the feeling like I'm reading literary criticism written by engineers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

'Jaded and casual' is not an attitude I want to encourage toward a fantasy world.
...
The idea that the great mythic wellsprings of the world are up for grabs, that they are less real than the material world, goes so completely against my grain that I don't find it fun. The strain of twisting my brain into that shape is just not worth the effort.

I can totally get that. If I was in the mood for some noble epic, PS would not be my choice of setting. I really enjoy irreverence and pro-active players (you know, my Dragonlance character is a minotaur bard with a lost True Love and a villain set up in the backstory, after all), so PS scratches a lot of my "have fun with some friends playing make-believe" itches, but like DL or GH or FR or EB, it has stories it is well suited for and stories it is not well suited for. It is not well suited for being reverent in the face of the heavens. You can do it, but the setting isn't made with that in mind.

And I'd never want to play D&D again in a world where PS adventures were the only planar adventures you could play (a la most of 2e). How you treat a cosmology affects how you play in a setting, and while PS works for PS, it wouldn't work for Eberron (for instance).

In his reply upthread, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] doesn't offer any reasons against my petty reasons, other than to note that they're probably particular to me as a professional philosopher fluent in Commonwealth English. That they're particular to me is already implicit in my characterisation of them as petty.

Folks are free to pooh-pooh any setting for any reason they want. You could hate it because of completely arbitrary reasons. Sometimes it's just useful to understand why people like a thing. Like, I don't think FR, Dragonlance, or the Nentir Vale are any great shakes, but I like hearing what other folks enjoy about them, if only to understand what kind of aesthetics people look for in their D&D games.

[sblock]

None of this contradicts my reasons for not liking Planescape as an RPG setting. It reaffirms them. "Poking a hole in Limbo and seeing if it all drains out" is setting exploration.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you're using the idea of "setting exploration" here, but I was pretty clear with how I was using the term "exploration" -- as "going somewhere cool, doing a thing, and coming home."

Poking a hole in the fabric of reality doesn't have that goal. Rather, the goal is unleashing chaos into the broader world, making the fundamental instability of things a part of the whole multiverse rather than one bit of it. It is about furthering your aims (as the Xaositect I was projecting there) of making all of reality a fundamentally less coherent place. It's about changing the setting, about forcing the world to react to you, about setting the stakes for your character's legacy. It'd be Paragon Tier or Epic Tier in my layout -- you have accomplished something great, and now you're going to see the awesomeness and horror that you've unleashed.

"Leading my very own cult of loyal sycophants" is setting exploration.

Again, it's about setting transformation. Your belief that the strong are in control means that you control others by virtue of having some strength that not everyone does. Others listen to you, the idea spreads, and you become a central figure for others to react to. It's Heroic-tier stuff in my presentation: you are getting the setting to recognize that you are a power to be respected.

"Distributing [X] among the people so that they have no cause to worship false gods" is perhaps starting to move away from exploration, but as presented there is still no conflict. Why does it matter that the people worship false gods - especially if, per standard D&D rules, the false gods answer and provide them with spells and a planar afterlife?

It matters because Truth matters (to this hypothetical Athar character). Because now you have given people new eyes with which to see and revealed to them the actual layout of the cosmos, where the gods are merely tools. And no conflict? I mean, the implication there is that all the gods are going to pass away because people no longer view them as important. Just look at Charles Darwin's legacy and see the conflicts that appear for that -- and Chucky D doesn't live in a world where the divinities he questioned actually manifest and kill people for questioning their authority.

I also don't see how this is much materially different than leading a cult of sychophants or spreading the influence of other planes. But I'm not sure your "setting exploration" meaning is clear, because none of those things are "go somewhere cool, do something, and come home." They all fundamentally alter the face of the setting and change the tone and goals of the game played within it.

You enjoy the Nentir Vale, so presumably that would not be focusing on setting exploration, but I also don't totally understand how any of those are more "setting exploration" than sailing the Astral Sea to form an alliance of deities against a newly resurgent Primordial army, to grab a cool Nentir Vale idea.
[/sblock]

 

[Imaro]

Planewalker's Handbook is a "snippet and tidbit"? That's not how it markets itself. It markets itself as an everything-you-need-to-get-started-guide-for-players-in-the-setting.

My larger point, and I'm sure you've gotten it by now, is that you're making sweeping generalizations, and judging a setting that you have never read the main books for (or the major boxed sets, Planes of Law and Planes of Chaos, though correct me if I am mistaken on this point). Even if half the basic information on Planescape was in the Planewalker's Handbook (Which setting wise I don't think it is) you're still missing 50%... I think I'd take your criticisms and commentary a little more seriously if you had a firmer foundation on which to base them is all I'm saying as opposed to a supplement and some modules.

In his reply upthread, @Kamikaze Midget doesn't offer any reasons against my petty reasons, other than to note that they're probably particular to me as a professional philosopher fluent in Commonwealth English. That they're particular to me is already implicit in my characterisation of them as petty.

Here is the substantive bit of KM's reply:

His reasons against your "petty reasons" are basically that the setting was purposefully designed to evoke a certain feel... more Moorcockian, Dickensian and Bas-Lag/New Crozbun than Greek Myth-esque. Personally with the number of fantasy rpg's that use the "mythic" history route I'm glad Planescape went in a different direction (One of the worst things about 4e's cosmology, IMO, was the feeling of Deja-vu my players and I had with the Exalted cosmology). You judge Planescape on your own sensibilities but that doesn't make it inherently bad, it's like judging a car as bad because it doesn't fly and you wanted something that flew or judging beef stew as a bad meal because you're a vegetarian. Planescape sets out to evoke certain themes, a certain feel and a unique vibe and I think it succeeds admirably at that and thus is not a "bad" setting as you and some others seem to be claiming (again correct me if I'm wrong).

None of this contradicts my reasons for not liking Planescape as an RPG setting. It reaffirms them. "Poking a hole in Limbo and seeing if it all drains out" is setting exploration. "Leading my very own cult of loyal sycophants" is setting exploration.

I'm going to disagree with your assertions here...

"Poking a hole in Limbo and seeing if it all drains out" is establishing setting through actions... if it fails you have determined through your actions that limbo will not change in that manner... if it does you have forever altered the landscape of Limbo.

"Leading my very own cult of sychophants" is establishing something in the setting... you've created and become the leader of an entire cult of fanatics, how is that not changing and impacting the setting? Did this cult exist before? Did you lead it before? Was what they believe in a belief before you established it? If the answer to any of these questions is no... then you've enacted change. I'm really not understanding how this one is exploration at all...

"Distributing [X] among the people so that they have no cause to worship false gods" is perhaps starting to move away from exploration, but as presented there is still no conflict. Why does it matter that the people worship false gods - especially if, per standard D&D rules, the false gods answer and provide them with spells and a planar afterlife?

I've got to assume that if someone is doing this they have a motivation... perhaps they want their "true" god to take those worshipers, perhaps they were wronged by the "false" gods and want revenge, or maybe they wish to free a loved one from what they see as manipulation by a "false" god. the motivations should be based on the characters not on the setting so in order to answer your question we would have to know what character is trying to accomplish this and that should answer the "why".

I'm not trying to persuade anyone else that they shouldn't play Planescape. Many D&D players obviously enjoy setting-exploratory play. But if you think that by reading the Planescape boxed set I would suddenly see the genius of a setting that I've hitherto wrongly set aside, I think you're wrong. I'm not ignorant of it; I just don't particularly care for it.

No, but with less than complete information you continue to narrowly (and incorrectly) label what type of play the Planescape setting offers (setting-exploratory play) even though other posters are telling you they are able to experience other types of play within the setting. I think if you actually took the time to read the setting you'd have a better overall picture of what a DM can do with the setting as opposed to what has been done in official adventures... whether that would change how you view it or not is of no concern to me, I just think if you're going to tell Planescape fans what they're setting is created and good for, you should have at least at some point... I don't know... actually have read the basic books for the setting... Do you think that's unreasonable?

 

[Imaro]

And that's the something more. The setting takes something which (to my own mythic imagination) should be rare and wondrous, and turns it into just another place to go. 'Jaded and casual' is not an attitude I want to encourage toward a fantasy world.

See for me the otherworld that is rare and wondrous is way to cliched... I like the fact that those who have been on the planes for a long time (or were born to them) don't approach them with the near reverence of a "clueless berk". I mean stage magic in our world is rare and wondrous... all the way up until you learn how the trick is done...

Again, this is an element that really rubs me the wrong way, both aesthetically and philosophically. (I'm not a professional philosopher like @pemerton , I just play one at home. ) The idea that the great mythic wellsprings of the world are up for grabs, that they are less real than the material world, goes so completely against my grain that I don't find it fun. The strain of twisting my brain into that shape is just not worth the effort.

I find this part of the Planescape setting, very Mage and Unknown Armies-esque. It makes mortals ultimately responsible for their own fate and existence. They have the power to shape the cosmos through belief itself... what is a god, devil or demon when a single mortal can change the fundamental nature of the multiverse? It firmly makes it so that mortals have the potential to be the greatest heroes and monsters in existence and puts the very nature, fate and form of their existence ultimately in their own control. If something exists it's because someone somewhere believed it into form and shape... so whose ultimately the monster the demon... the dragon, or the one who gives it it's power and existence?

And while the idea of a place like Sigil, a city of doors to all sorts of places, is indeed really cool; it makes no mythic sense for me for it to be at the very center of the multiverse and off-limits to the gods themselves. (Of course, this is starting to edge into my vast distaste for the whole Great Wheel, not Planescape per se.)

Again, I like this set up... this feeds into a view of the multiverse where the mortal races are in and of themselves special beings (as opposed to being special because they are half-god, or bathed themselves in dragon blood or whatever)... why else can the lowliest peasant enter a place that the gods themselves are barred from?

I recall looking over one of the PS modules (don't remember what it was called) and being aghast at how horribly railroady and de-protagonizing it was - the PC's were basically there to be forcibly taken on a grand tour of the planes and be jabbered at.

But in fairness, you're right - a lot of the adventures back then were terrible, it certainly wasn't unique to Planescape.

Yeah, many 2e era modules were extremely railroady but that's why I think the setting shouldn't be judged based on modules... The two may be interconnected but you're not getting a full view if your only reference is the modules.

 

[TerraDave]

You know, you could just say no, you haven't read it.

Thanks.

Obviously I have read it. There is an issue of clarity in the original (you have to read it a few times to get that the river styx flows around blocks on the top layer, and of course the "blocks" are fundamentally different on each layer). When I read the actual planescape campaign setting description, which uses cube in passing, they are not that far apart. But they do change it, mostly to liven it up. By the 3E manual of the planes, there are a number of changes.

Which is normal. Of course there where changes from the Great Wheel in 1e to PS to more recent editions. Like the names of planes, the roles of gods/powers, descriptive details, how magic works on the planes, planar inhabitants, how to get to and from the planes...Its normal that the publisher of the game changes things once in a while. Its misleading to say its "deeply ignorant" not to know this immutable history when there is no such thing.

 

[Hussar]

I think I finally had an epiphany.

Let me see if I can work through this so that it makes sense, because, for me at least, it seems to explain why I'm having such an uphill battle trying to make my point.

The difference here is between a resource and a setting. The Planes (not Planescape, but all the Planes) are a single setting, not a resource.

Take an orc. An orc is a resource. There is no really inherent elements of an orc that I can't mold, change or eject and still have it recognisable as an orc, by and large. By default, orcs worship Gruumsh, but, if I want demon worshipping orcs, no one will bat an eye. If I want pirate demon cultist orcs, again, not a problem. Heck, if I want demon worshipping, ninja pirate orcs riding dinosaurs, I can probably get away with that and, while people might not like the idea, it won't be criticised as a canon issue. Orcs, as I said, are a resource. There is no real expectation that an orc in Greyhawk will be the same as an orc in Forgotten Realms or Eberron or Athas for that matter. And certainly no expectation that an orc in any given sourcebook or module will automatically follow orc lore set out in the default setting.

Basically, you can take an orc and do pretty much whatever you want with it and it's still an orc. It's a resource for building a setting, not part of any specific setting.

But, look at how the planes are presented in the 1e Manual of the Planes. They are not presented as a resource, they are very, very specific about what the planes are, what they look like, what things you will find there and what unique, named individuals from D&D canon you will find there. Gruumsh hangs out on Acheron. That's not a resource book, that's a setting book. And all settings are defined by their canon. That's why changes to The Planes generates such strong reactions. You are messing with a setting's canon and that setting is pretty specific and has loads of lore for it. All you have to do is look at the hugely negative reaction to the 4e Realms and you see what happens when you futz about with setting canon.

Compare the MotP to something like Sandstorm, which I would call a resource book. In Sandstorm, it defines a wasteland in broad terms, whether big or small, above ground or under, magical or not and then outlines a number of different options that you may or may not find in a given waste. Then it leaves everything up to the DM to create that waste area. But, the MotP doesn't do that. The MotP defines every plane is very specific detail.

See, my mistake was always thinking of the planes as a resource, same as you would treat the Prime Material. In the Prime, if I'm running, say, Eberron, there's no expectation that Faerun also exists in that campaign setting. It might if I add it there, but, there's certainly no expectation that that is true. But, in The Planes setting, the planes are single, unified setting. An orc in Faerun is different from an orc in Eberron. But a Yugoloth is the same in both settings because Yuguloth come from The Planes setting. My other mistake was thinking that this was a Planescape change that came in later on down the road. But, really, it's always been that way. The planes were never a resource for the DM, or at least, not for a very long time. They have always been The Planes, defined and detailed as a single campaign setting that never changes regardless of where you come from.

A character from Athas, or Ansalon, or Khorvaire or Faerun who travels to Acheron ALWAYS enters into The Planes setting. And The Planes isn't a resource where the DM is expected to create a campaign setting from the building blocks provided. It's a complete setting unto itself.

And without canon, you cannot have a setting. Settings are defined by canon. Resources don't need canon, they only need suggestions. Note, not all Prime Material monsters are resources either. Drow come to mind as something that are much more of a setting than a resource. If I feature drow in an adventure, that comes with all sorts of pretty strong expectations based on the lore surrounding Drow. I wouldn't expect to find a Drow castle aboveground, for example. Planar creatures and elements are far more like Drow than orcs or kobolds. Orcs and kobolds and the vast majority of Prime Material goodies come with suggestions - Kobolds might be slaves of dragons, or they might not be. But the planes never change. Heck, look at Remalthalis' reaction to my idea of changing Acheron. In a resource, that would be perfectly fine. But Acheron is part of a complete setting and it has canon. It cannot be changed. If I want a post apocalyptic plane, I should use a different name, because Acheron is already established as its own thing. If I wanted blink elves, I should find a new name, not repurpose an existing part of canon of a setting.

Does this make sense? Is it fair to say that The Planes are a setting and not a resource?

 

[Parmandur]

I think the way you think of Orcs is not the way that TSR or WOTC has in the past; the planes in the 1E MotP are presented in the same manner as Orcs in the MM..

 

[SkidAce]

I think I finally had an epiphany.

...snip good stuff..

Does this make sense? Is it fair to say that The Planes are a setting and not a resource?

I think your explanation was well reasoned and stated.

And, I agree that many consider Plansecape a setting (obviously).

Its when the planes and Planescape get conflated that they turn from a resource into a setting.



The concerns you have when discussing the issue, IS probably because most people consider the planes a setting. They are so mixed together its hard to discuss separately.


However, I use the planes as a resource,

currently I use;

Elysium (1st edition version)
Mount Celestia (4th, without the 4th deities or cities)
Arvandor (homebrewed)
Ysgard (from Norse myths)
Acheron (4th with some Magic the Gathering ancient war machines and battle sites laying around)
Tytherion (Tiamat's door to the Hells)
Carceri (half 1st and half 4th's islands)
The Nine Hells (from the Dragon Magazine and MotP)
Hades (wasteland where Tharizdun was defeated, hence all the entropy)
Mithardir (combination of 1st edition version and Shom from 4th, hme of an ancient lost egyption flavored race)


Plus the fact that the alt material planes are mostly solar systems, and the abyss is a void within the darkest part of the stars.
---

https://alfaysia.obsidianportal.com/wikis/multiverse-structure