Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[Weather Report]

Edit.

 

[Campbell]

I do not mind setting material. What personally bothers me is setting material that is not meant to be gamed with. The most interesting parts of any setting should be where it interfaces with the player characters. I do not want overwritten material that is unlikely to matter in actual play. Give me directly relevant material that shapes the play environment.

That being said there are definitely interesting parts of Planescape. They were just overwhelmed by the '90s era obsession with illusionism and metaplot. Planescape was not alone with this. Old World of Darkness, older editions of L5R, and others were just as guilty.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, it's funny.

What started this whole thread came out of the Yugoloth thread. In the Yugoloth thread, someone mentioned that it might be a cool idea if Yugoloth served gods. Not that they have to or anything like that. Just a thought. [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] immediately stated that this would be impossible because Yugoloth hate gods. The entire idea is shot down, not because the idea is bad or not interesting, but because it contradicts Planescape canon.

Canon which does not exist in any other setting other than Planescape.

And this is hardly the first time I've seen this sort of thing. Any time any discussion of planar elements comes up, the PS fans jump up and down that any change must first be vetted to be PS compatible.

No other setting ever gets to have that level of control over core elements in D&D. And I have no idea why PS fans get away with it. Why do the rest of us, who have zero interest in PS lore have to follow PS canon in publications which are not set in Planescape?

If I want to add the idea of god serving Yugoloths into the game, that should be discussed on its own merits. Not shot down simply because it counters something in a book that only applies to one setting.

THAT'S my point for this thread. Trying to paint me as some hysterical PS hater isn't true. I don't like Planescape, but, then again, I would argue for any setting having this sort of authority over core. I didn't rail against 4e changes, because the 4e changes were interesting.

Heck, Yugoloths hating gods might be every bit as interesting as yugoloths serving gods. My beef is that the discussion gets shut down, not because the ideas are bad, but because the keepers of the PS lore forbid any changes.

 

[Orius]

That was the entire point/style of the PS line. Like Piratecat, I found reading Planescape "rules" a hell of a lot more fun and entertaining than slogging through the mind-numbing dribble in all of my 2e & 3.5 rulebooks. I found it really cool when I'm reading a monster's ecology and I'm being told about the creature first hand by a Planewalker or Greybeard. It's extremely boring to read my 3.5 monster manual entries.

It sounds like the same reasons 1e fans like to read Gary's writing.

I wonder if the use of cant bothers people because they are not familiar with the word and are unsure of its meaning? I can see that dislike if you have to look up the word to figure out what the hell the author is saying.

There's that to some degree, though I never had that problem with PS cant. When it was used well, you could pretty much understand what was being said through context. Another problem with the cant I've seen comes from the perspective of British players; a good chunk of the cant comes from British slang and was probably chosen by the designers because it sounds unusual to an American audience (though that's a YMMV bit too because I recognized some terms like barmy and sod right from the start). But then a British player picks up the stuff and recognizes the cant in a way that was probably unintended by the writers, and the intended feel is then lost.

I got tired of dealing with that in my own PS game. So I made a "Planar PC Races" pdf consisting of the races & stats that I allow players to use in my campaign.

It helped out a lot for the most part. But I still occasionally had annoying players still ask me to allow some other random race (some D&D races, and once a WoW race). I guess 41 different races just isn't enough to choose from for some people.

I'm pretty sure PS kept things pretty conservative with class/race combos because the designers were well aware that not every DM out there collected every single setting and that at least some of those DMs want to have some degree of control over what goes on in the campaign (I did however find it strange the PS restricted PHB races like elves, dwarves, etc since pretty much every 2e product assumed the players all had the PHB).

I'm largely okay with a player asking if he can play a certain type of PC I don't want if he lets it go when I say no. I mean there's just so many combinations out there that I can't realistically say everything I don't want is banned beforehand. It's the players that are persistant about it that become the problem. And asking to play a WoW race in D&D is just plain silly.

 

[RichGreen]

There's that to some degree, though I never had that problem with PS cant. When it was used well, you could pretty much understand what was being said through context. Another problem with the cant I've seen comes from the perspective of British players; a good chunk of the cant comes from British slang and was probably chosen by the designers because it sounds unusual to an American audience (though that's a YMMV bit too because I recognized some terms like barmy and sod right from the start). But then a British player picks up the stuff and recognizes the cant in a way that was probably unintended by the writers, and the intended feel is then lost.

As a British person, I can honestly say that I've never talked about rattling a body's bone box or slipping anyone the blinds, honest guv . The only word from the cant that didn't sound archaic and odd to me was "berk", meaning "idiot", which we might have called each other when I was at school in the 70s/80s.

Cheers


Rich

 

[Balesir]

As a British person, I can honestly say that I've never talked about rattling a body's bone box or slipping anyone the blinds, honest guv .

Really? "Bonebox" was the one bit of cant I found really unfamiliar. I certainly heard folks talk about "a body having to do such and such" and "slippin' 'im the blinds" was something a thief (a real one, not the class) might do. If there's an "oddity" about the cant it's that it takes a whole selection of rhyming slang and adds odd bits from other regions, which can sound a bit strange.

The only word from the cant that didn't sound archaic and odd to me was "berk", meaning "idiot", which we might have called each other when I was at school in the 70s/80s.

It's a lot ruder than that, actually, but it somehow became common currency in the early 20th century, I think, because "polite society" didn't know where it actually originated from. It's originally from cockney rhyming slang; it's short for "Berkshire hunt".

 

[RichGreen]

Really? "Bonebox" was the one bit of cant I found really unfamiliar. I certainly heard folks talk about "a body having to do such and such" and "slippin' 'im the blinds" was something a thief (a real one, not the class) might do. If there's an "oddity" about the cant it's that it takes a whole selection of rhyming slang and adds odd bits from other regions, which can sound a bit strange.

It's a lot ruder than that, actually, but it somehow became common currency in the early 20th century, I think, because "polite society" didn't know where it actually originated from. It's originally from cockney rhyming slang; it's short for "Berkshire hunt".

LOL, sounds like you're a right rum cove, and no mistake!

I'd forgotten about the origins of berk - good point. Been a long time since I've used that expression

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if the use of cant bothers people because they are not familiar with the word and are unsure of its meaning?

Another problem with the cant I've seen comes from the perspective of British players; a good chunk of the cant comes from British slang and was probably chosen by the designers because it sounds unusual to an American audience (though that's a YMMV bit too because I recognized some terms like barmy and sod right from the start). But then a British player picks up the stuff and recognizes the cant in a way that was probably unintended by the writers, and the intended feel is then lost.

I am Australian, not British, but have much the same experience.

It's not that all of the cant is part of my daily vocabulary - though it wouldn't be odd to here someone called a "berk", for instance - but that it's mostly recognisable and for me at least doesn't evoke an other-planar fantasy city at all.

I do not mind setting material. What personally bothers me is setting material that is not meant to be gamed with. The most interesting parts of any setting should be where it interfaces with the player characters. I do not want overwritten material that is unlikely to matter in actual play.

100% this.

IThat being said there are definitely interesting parts of Planescape. They were just overwhelmed by the '90s era obsession with illusionism and metaplot.

And as best I can tell from the productes I have, Planescape is especially egregious in this respect even by 2nd ed AD&D standards (though I have a few Ravenloft modules from the same general period that are also pretty bad).

 

[Balesir]

LOL, sounds like you're a right rum cove, and no mistake!

I'd love to make a witty reply, but I've no lemon 'cos the trouble will be on the dog if I don't get this stuff ackled right smartly.

And as best I can tell from the productes I have, Planescape is especially egregious in this respect even by 2nd ed AD&D standards (though I have a few Ravenloft modules from the same general period that are also pretty bad).

Oh, yes, PlaneScape has more than its share of metaplot BS, but that's really an omnipresent hazard with pretty much anything '90s. I love some of the world concepts played with in early WoD, too (even though the system sucks), but unfortunately the authors couldn't help playing with it, either, leading to a load of ""cool"" (one set of quote marks just isn't enough, there) backstory and real, independent exploration wrecking claptrap. One of the best things about both OWoD and PlaneScape now is that they are no longer being "expanded", so I only need to excise the cruft once...

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, the question is what sort of canon and assumptions we're going to see in 5E. The designers are clearly pulling back from 4E's attempt to rewrite the whole cosmology and shove the World Axis into everything. So there's a legitimate concern that this "pull-back" will result in Planescape (which certainly was rather intrusive in the late 2E era) filling the void.

I'm not overly concerned about that, myself. The impression I get is that the designers are not so much trying to roll back 4E's changes and revert to an earlier state, as they are trying to minimize the setting-specific material that will be in 5E, so you can easily adopt the World Axis or the Great Wheel or whatever floats your boat. The way they're handling deities for clerics is inspired, and I hope to see the same approach taken throughout the core material.

I think the best they can do is:

1) In the core books, barely mention the planes at all. It's ok to have a few spells saying "by travelling through the astral plane, you can reach any destination" or "you can turn ethereal and get this benefit and that penalty". These add a minimum of fluff that frankly doesn't imply much on your cosmology. Just use those spells because of their effects, without having to think how the whole astral plane and ethereal plane work, how they are connected, who lives there and so on... Just apply the damn effects on your game.

2) If and only if, you want to expand and known more about what happens if you stay on those planes, then buy the Manual of The Planes. Even there however, I would rather present all planes separately so that a DM can cherrypick the interesting ones. Just because you decided to have a Hell in your games, it doesn't mean you also must have an Abyss.

3) The connections between planes should be described with care. For some planes, the connection with the material plane is one of the defining points of the other plane (ethereal, plane of shadow, plane of mirrors, plane of dreams...), but for others like the inner and outer planes, it is not so useful to list out such things as "there are portals between Hell and the following planes X, Y, Z", until you start defining the whole cosmology layout or at least a draft of it, because the exact connections don't really change what those planes are (while it does in the previous cases!).

4) The whole cosmology layout deserves a separate chapter in MotP, where several options (Great Wheel etc) are presented, with "make your own cosmology" guidelines.

Actually the 3.0 MotP was nearly a perfect book for these.

It's ok though. Planescape hate is never anything that a fan should get upset about. The reasons people give for hating it are always the same. Either the reasons are understandable: don't like the Blood War, don't like factions, don't like Sigil, don't like the cosmology, don't like the changes it made to fiends & angels. Or, the reasons are laughable: the art sucks (every setting & edition before PS had a lot of art that was way worse, but nobody complains about it), the cant sucks (you can still roleplay your Scottish Dwarf without using any cant).

In any case, it's not like any content has to invade your game if you don't want it to. Those examples are extremely easy to ignore or quickly change to what suits you. I'm not going to blame Greyhawk cause core includes Gnomes and I don't want Gnomes in my game. I'm going to pick and choose what I like from core regardless of what the publishers tell me is core. The core content is always going to change as long as they keep changing editions, and influence is going to come from everywhere. Nobody is forcing you to change with it.

Absolutely... Personally I always disliked Eberron, but I don't haunt threads about it explaining why it sucks and people shouldn't play it... If you hate a setting, just ignore it.

Clearly however, if they pick one setting as default, this can irritate a lot of people that don't like the setting in the first place. Best not to have any default setting.