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

[Nellisir]

As I've posted in other threads that you've participated in, I don't find that Planescape frames the players (via their PCs) directly into the sorts of conflict/value questions I am interested in; nor that it provides the GM with story elements to frame such conflicts. A simple example: 4e presents the gods as antagonists the PCs might overcome, whereas in Planescape (as per @Mustrum_Ridcully's post that I quoted upthread) there is no expectation of, nor real provision for, PCs overthrowing (for instance) the Lady of Pain.

The general tendency of Planescape is towards asserting and presenting a type of relativism, and presenting individual beliefs/perspectives as merely partial: as @Neonchameleon has suggested in this thread (or, at least, that's what I've taken from his posts), the symmetry of the Great Wheel plus the whole "beliefs shape the world" implies that all persepctives are equally valid and hence that any attempt to cling to a particular perspective is a partiality that is ultimately arbitrary, even indefensible.

This actually makes sense to me. It's hard to have a campaign centered around (players) making the hard moral choices when all choices are ultimately equal. Planescape's conceit is the utilization of the planes as the stage for the players' actions; if all perspectives are not valid, then the stage tilts, perhaps permanently. That's a Big Deal. That's the underpinnings of reality that are changing.

I think that's perhaps part of my disinterest in Planescape: the stage is so large the characters, by contrast, are always tiny, and the amazing becomes commonplace.

I think I would enjoy PS more if there were different levels of conflict; if "mortal" planar denizens contested with other mortal denizens, trying to carve out space for themselves in the middle of warring undying petitioners, while angels and demons clashed over both of them. The presumed grandeur of the Outer Planes loses something when you can walk into a bar and find a planetar and a slaadi playing at darts (well, the planetar is playing darts. The slaadi is playing at toasters and pretzels and does-the-halfling-fit-into-a-mug).

I also find that Planescape makes a big deal of secret backstory (eg the yugoloth stuff that @Shemeska and others love) and quirks like angels and demons drinking together (and perhaps falling in love) in Sigil, the Great Modron March, etc.

There is an abundance of that.

 

[pemerton]

I think I would enjoy PS more if there were different levels of conflict; if "mortal" planar denizens contested with other mortal denizens, trying to carve out space for themselves in the middle of warring undying petitioners, while angels and demons clashed over both of them.

That certainly sounds different from Planescape as I understand it, and (like you) I think this miht make it better suited for my purposes.

The presumed grandeur of the Outer Planes loses something when you can walk into a bar and find a planetar and a slaadi playing at darts.

100% agreed!

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I've posted in other threads that you've participated in, I don't find that Planescape frames the players (via their PCs) directly into the sorts of conflict/value questions I am interested in; nor that it provides the GM with story elements to frame such conflicts. A simple example: 4e presents the gods as antagonists the PCs might overcome, whereas in Planescape (as per [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]'s post that I quoted upthread) there is no expectation of, nor real provision for, PCs overthrowing (for instance) the Lady of Pain.

Now here I'm going to defend Planescape - at least prior to The Faction War. The Lady of Pain's main purpose is to be a direct "Bigger hammer" shield against direct interference by deities. In a near-naked "Might makes right" setting like Planescape (seriously, if all perspectives are equally valid, then the one who can force others to accept theirs is right irrespective of that position - Planescape is a level of Might Makes Right that Greyhawk can only dream of) the way to prevent divine meddling is get a bigger hammer, in this case the LoP.

The general tendency of Planescape is towards asserting and presenting a type of relativism, and presenting individual beliefs/perspectives as merely partial: as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has suggested in this thread (or, at least, that's what I've taken from his posts), the symmetry of the Great Wheel plus the whole "beliefs shape the world" implies that all persepctives are equally valid and hence that any attempt to cling to a particular perspective is a partiality that is ultimately arbitrary, even indefensible.

And here I disagree with your conclusions although agree with most of the logic. If all perspectives are equally valid then there is no possible reason for giving up any position - even the position 1+1=3 is as valid a perspective as 1+1=2, and it's only the prevailing local beliefs that it's otherwise. (Actually I exaggerate with that example - 2 is equal to 1+1 by definition). This means that the way to choose between positions is who benefits. Jackbooted fascism is literally no less right than any other perspective - and the perspective that all perspectives are equally valid and so you shouldn't cling to one is just another perspective.

 

[Nellisir]

That certainly sounds different from Planescape as I understand it, and (like you) I think this miht make it better suited for my purposes.

It's a different sort of game, I guess. And you could still have Sigil as a place outside of the normal rules; it'd actually enhance Sigil by making it unique.

I think it'd be cool. I mean, imagine that there's a skirmish above your head and the body of a deva falls into your village. In ordinary PS, you, I dunno, call someone to come pick it up in the mail cart. In Mythic Planescape you do not want that kind of attention. You do not want to be involved in the games of Thrones. So the village elders wrap it up and give it to a pack of unlucky village orphans to find a way to get it to where it ought to be without attracting notice.

I think most things stand as they are presented, but the values and understandings shift. Mortals can find a Charon to ride the Styx, but it's weird. The Styx is for the dead (petitioners). You're riding the bus in a ballgown and spats. You stand out. And when you die, you become one of them. The things that were important in life become less important than winning glory for your god or relaxing in your golden fields.

 

[Hussar]

I was trying to think of good examples of what I meant and I remembered I actually own Fiendish Codex II - Tyrants of Hell. Now, it's a fantastic book. Well written and absolutely dripping with flavour. It's a great setting sourcebook. But, that's the thing, it's a setting sourcebook. It does exactly what Kamikaze Midget talks about - it is very broadly definitional. It tells you in no uncertain terms who lives where and what those places look like. There's no suggestions in the book, it's stating exactly what the setting looks like. Sure, it doesn't define 100% of the planes, but, let's face it, at this point it's The Planes Setting that is being talked about.

For me, what I want is a planar guide to Hell that says, "Ok, look, we got 9 infinite planes, but, feel free to mix and match what you want. Here's a couple dozen things you could likely expect to find when sauntering about the Hells, again, feel free to pick and choose." IOW, I want a resource book, not a setting guide.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If I've understood you right, this was the 4e approach to a significant extent: the Tomb of Horrors, the Temple of Elemental Evil, the Isle of Dread, etc all exist in the PoL without too much fuss about their original home.

Yeah, I think 4e was right on this account -- no reason Homlett couldn't be in the Nentir Vale, too. And whether when you run that adventure Zuggtmoy is from the Abyss or from the Feywild or just from an unholy place deep underground...eh, not exactly relevant. She's a hideous fungi from beyond this world.

By the same token, no reason we can't grab some element of 4e and plunk it down elsewhere. Planescape tieflings are their own thing, but Turathi tieflings, complete with their back story, imprisoned somewhere in the Nine Hells? Yeah, lets go.

For me, what I want is a planar guide to Hell that says, "Ok, look, we got 9 infinite planes, but, feel free to mix and match what you want. Here's a couple dozen things you could likely expect to find when sauntering about the Hells, again, feel free to pick and choose." IOW, I want a resource book, not a setting guide.

The Fiendish Codecies came to exist in a world where we already had the 3e Manual of the Planes. The MotP was exactly a toolbox approach, not just to the Nine Hells, but to your entire cosmology. So I can't really blame the FC's for not treading the same ground. I mean, what would they really add there?

Instead you got a book about the Nine Hells that you could just take and cram into whatever setting you have. Give Eberron the Nine Hells if you wanted (again, recommend that it just sit in Eberron's underworld of Kyhber, rather than being a separate plane).

 

[SkidAce]

I was trying to think of good examples of what I meant and I remembered I actually own Fiendish Codex II - Tyrants of Hell. Now, it's a fantastic book. Well written and absolutely dripping with flavour. It's a great setting sourcebook. But, that's the thing, it's a setting sourcebook. It does exactly what Kamikaze Midget talks about - it is very broadly definitional. It tells you in no uncertain terms who lives where and what those places look like. There's no suggestions in the book, it's stating exactly what the setting looks like. Sure, it doesn't define 100% of the planes, but, let's face it, at this point it's The Planes Setting that is being talked about.

For me, what I want is a planar guide to Hell that says, "Ok, look, we got 9 infinite planes, but, feel free to mix and match what you want. Here's a couple dozen things you could likely expect to find when sauntering about the Hells, again, feel free to pick and choose." IOW, I want a resource book, not a setting guide.

Pick up a copy of Beyond Countless Doorways by Malhavoc Press.

Great book.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think they're especially well-suited for the sort of RPGing I want to do. But not everyone wants to do what I want to do. And perhaps some of those who want to play in a similar way to me can see virtues in Planescape and its cosmology that I can't. That wouldn't be very surprising

Okay that's a much clearer statement that I have no issues with... Even if I do disagree with it.

I don't agree that this can be done in virtually any setting. For instance, there is really nothing in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos, as presented in the Expert rulebook, to support the sort of play I describe. The GM and players would have to write it all themselves.

Well in all honesty I don't have the expert rule book... But I do have the actual Karameikos gazetteer and it's got some of the conflicts you're speaking to built in already, especially the chaos (as represented by the vast tracks of monster infested wilderness and humanoid tribes) vs. law (as represented by the efforts of the duke, his people and the original people to survive in and civilize the land).

As I've posted in other threads that you've participated in, I don't find that Planescape frames the players (via their PCs) directly into the sorts of conflict/value questions I am interested in; nor that it provides the GM with story elements to frame such conflicts. A simple example: 4e presents the gods as antagonists the PCs might overcome, whereas in Planescape (as per [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]'s post that I quoted upthread) there is no expectation of, nor real provision for, PCs overthrowing (for instance) the Lady of Pain.

I'm going to agree (possibly for the first time ever) with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] here... and to add to what he stated... First The Lady of Pain is the only "thing" in the setting that is by default untouchable (though clearly if a DM wanted to allow her to be overthrown there's nothing stopping him from playing it out with his players). Second, The Lady of Pain is clearly intended in the campaign setting material to be a DM tool that is more akin to a force of nature or something like the powers of Ravenloft (which were also a pure DM tool in that setting) than a NPC or monster... This is probably one of those things not conveyed well through adventures but is pretty clear when you read the setting materials.

The general tendency of Planescape is towards asserting and presenting a type of relativism, and presenting individual beliefs/perspectives as merely partial: as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has suggested in this thread (or, at least, that's what I've taken from his posts), the symmetry of the Great Wheel plus the whole "beliefs shape the world" implies that all persepctives are equally valid and hence that any attempt to cling to a particular perspective is a partiality that is ultimately arbitrary, even indefensible.

Again I agree with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] here (This has to be some type of record, two times in a row ). And again to add on to what he is saying, the fact of the matter is that, as he alluded to in his statements about The Lady of Pain... might makes right... whoever can impose their beliefs upon others establishes what the "valid "beliefs" of the multiverse are... IMO, the major questions aren't whether your belief is valid or not... we know how to resolve that in game through play... it instead changes focus to how important are your beliefs being valid and what are you willing to do to make sure your beliefs (as opposed to someone else's ) become tangible and valid across the mutliverse? But then IMO, this seems very similar to the type of playstyle you seem to be advocating as set out in the quote of Campbell you posted earlier...

... violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right...

The only place I find contention at is the fact that nothing forces the PC's to become "mythic figures"... but certainly it is within their capability to become such in the Planescape setting.

I also find that Planescape makes a big deal of secret backstory (eg the yugoloth stuff that [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] and others love) and quirks like angels and demons drinking together (and perhaps falling in love) in Sigil, the Great Modron March, etc.

I don't think having some secret backstory is all that inimical to your style of play... I mean even 4e has some secret backstory. I'm not sure how the "quirks" factor into it at all perhaps you could elaborate...

As I already posted in this thread, [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] is the only poster on these boards who has outlined an approach to Planescape closer to my preferred approach. But Shemeska in practically everyone of these threads, and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] in this thread, when they point to the sorts of play that Planescape supports, point to setting exploration of the sort that Planescape seems to me to treat as its core focus, and that I personally am not all that enthused by.

Well as I stated earlier you probably only have a fraction of the picture of what Planescape's focus can be (I actually think most published adventures are of the "setting exploration" variety, at least as it is defined by you... so I'm not sure using adventures as your source is a good measure. But hey, to each his own I'm not trying to convince you to love Planescape... just trying to convince you to maybe actually read the campaign setting before passing judgement.

 

[Quickleaf]

The only place I find contention at is the fact that nothing forces the PC's to become "mythic figures"... but certainly it is within their capability to become such in the Planescape setting.

Quick anecdote from my several year long 2e Planescape campaign to support this...

The 2 main PCs went on to become incredibly mythic figures. Rainfall became an oracle of sorts, a proxy (saint) of Isis, slayer of demon lords, and at the very end the question was left open-ended whether she became the Lady of Pain. Kiryan became a leader of armies, defender of Mount Celestia, redeemer of fallen angels, mythical lover, and the Sensate Factol's right hand.

Well as I stated earlier you probably only have a fraction of the picture of what Planescape's focus can be (I actually think most published adventures are of the "setting exploration" variety, at least as it is defined by you... so I'm not sure using adventures as your source is a good measure. (snip)

I think Planescape adventures, while having many intriguing ideas, tend to suffer from flaws endemic to 2e adventures of the early/mid-90's - namely, being railroady and providing little player agency. It is that observation (coupled with my love of the setting & numerous reports from DMs who've struggled to run the setting) that inspired me to put together a Planescape mega-adventure.

Not sure about OGL vs. 5e's third party license vs. pitch to WOTC, but you can find my design ideas here: http://www.planewalker.com/content/5th-edition-planescape-campaign

 

[Remathilis]

No one is asking for the "official version" to be changed. @Hussar is complaining that departures from the "official version" don't get published. And I'm arguing that changes to the "official version" are certainly permissible, and often desirable, and hence when they occur don't amount to "disrespect" or a failure of "integrity" on the part of the designers.

But they did. I posted four alternate cosmologies that completely ignored Great Wheel/Sigil/Planescape/Fnarg cosmologies (Eberron, Realms, OA, D&DG). The Manual of the Planes gave us three additional ones (Orrery, Winding Road, Omniverse). Dragon had the Plane of Radiance (which appears no where in the Great Wheel in that form; a true variant plane). They HAVE been published. And that's just WotC; Third Parties (like Paizo) are FORCED to do it by the SRD.

And to the second point; why are the "permissible and often desirable", because YOU don't like it and would like to see it change. Other people don't agree with that (making it a subjective statement), so my point stands.

As to whether a change garners "disrespect", I can bring up a non-gaming example to show you what I mean. In Doctor Who, Cybermen have had a single origin since 1960-something. They were from the planet Mondas (an earth-like planet) and replaced their human bodies with cybernetics to avoid death. Over the years, different writers added and subtracted from this origin (adding weaknesses to gold or claiming a second planet, Telos, was involved in their origin, and that doesn't even begin to account for the costume changes), but the core "cyberman" story was the same.

Until 2006. When the show rebooted; the head-writer (Russel Davies) gave the Cybermen a new origin. They were from an alternate version of earth, created by a human businessman to use as an army, and most were converted without their consent (the original Cybes were willing, but became borg-like later as they felt the need to add to their "race"). Aside from a single throw-away reference "Its happening again.", the old Cybermen were ignored and replaced with these new "Cybusmen" (named after the company that made them) were the default Cybermen from then on. (It wasn't until Stephen Moffat became lead writer that slowly, the old Cybermen returned without fuss or fanfare, and the Cybusmen either assimilated or disappeared).

The amount of BETRAYAL! many people felt about the ignoring the 40+ year old origin and mythology of the Cybermen to create a new (and arguably, well done) creation point though was palpable. Nobody likes being told "remember that thing you loved? Forget it, here's thing 2.0 thats better because we said it is" (Well, maybe Apple users; I keed, I keed). It was a disrespect to those who loved the older Cybermen; gold allergy and bad costumes included.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Go to a Star Trek convention and mention how you like Abram's movies more than the OS. (Here's a hint; run quickly).

Anytime you are updating something that has had a while to garner fans, you have to be mindful of their feelings regarding a change. When possible, you need to incorporate as much of the old lore as you can, no matter how much better the "clean slate" looks appealing. This is true of Cybermen and Eladrin.