D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

Hussar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your arguments go around and have many interesting points, but you keep returning to this blind assertion.

Savage Wombat said:

Your arguments go around and have many interesting points, but you keep returning to this blind assertion.

Click to expand...

How is this a blind assertion?

Am I mistaken and Planescape is not meant as the default planar setting in D&D?

Am I mistaken and there are source books for the planes published by TSR or WOTC that do not reference Planescape?

Can you name three sourcebooks published by WOTC in the past, say, ten years prior to the release of 4e, dealing with the planes that don't reference Planescape?

Because if you can, I'd love to hear it. I'd be all over that like a fat man on M&M's.

Hussar said:

How is this a blind assertion?

Am I mistaken and Planescape is not meant as the default planar setting in D&D?

Am I mistaken and there are source books for the planes published by TSR or WOTC that do not reference Planescape?

Can you name three sourcebooks published by WOTC in the past, say, ten years prior to the release of 4e, dealing with the planes that don't reference Planescape?

Because if you can, I'd love to hear it. I'd be all over that like a fat man on M&M's.

Click to expand...

We've been over this with you - you're conflating "Planescape" with "2nd edition D&D planar material / the Great Wheel" and throwing in your own assertion that the Planescape material somehow demand special treatment in canon. Other people have argued these points with you at length, and yet you continue to assert your statement as fact instead of your opinion.

Like you said about edition warring in the other thread, just say "I don't like Planescape" and move on.

Nellisir said:

I owned the original Planescape boxed set and a bunch of the additional material. Honestly, it always seemed pretty meh. There were good parts, but overall, not something interesting.

Click to expand...

Well I disagree with your assertion, I honestly thought as a kid it was one of the most imaginative settings TSR had produced, especially compared to the offerings that existed then. It spoke to me of the type of sword and sorcery I enjoyed (mostly Moorcoockian in nature as opposed to Howardian)... Perhaps it was because I was introduced to Planescape at a pretty early age and thus it formed many of my fantasy concepts. I think the only settings I enjoyed as much as Planescape were Dark Sun and Ravenloft... of course they scratched a totally different itch.

However that said I respect the fact that you've actually read the material as opposed to commenting on it from secondary sources like modules or sourcebooks... It would be like me claiming to have an understanding of the Nentir Vale as a setting because I played Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows...

Imaro said:

Well I disagree with your assertion, I honestly thought as a kid it was one of the most imaginative settings TSR had produced, especially compared to the offerings that existed then. It spoke to me of the type of sword and sorcery I enjoyed (mostly Moorcoockian in nature as opposed to Howardian)... Perhaps it was because I was introduced to Planescape at a pretty early age and thus it formed many of my fantasy concepts. I think the only settings I enjoyed as much as Planescape were Dark Sun and Ravenloft... of course they scratched a totally different itch.

However that said I respect the fact that you've actually read the material as opposed to commenting on it from secondary sources like modules or sourcebooks... It would be like me claiming to have an understanding of the Nentir Vale as a setting because I played Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows...

Click to expand...

I don't bitch about Planescape because I know a lot of people like it. That's cool. I don't like to drink IPAs; that doesn't mean the crafty beer companies should stop making them. I got really sick of Planescape back in the '90s when it took over for awhile, but that was almost 20 years ago; I can live with a low level of background noise. I've got my own setting and my own mythology that I use.

Edit: I actually have more PS material now than I did then (ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies), and I've tried reading it recently. Still doesn't do it for me, but I can appreciate it as something different.

Savage Wombat said:

We've been over this with you - you're conflating "Planescape" with "2nd edition D&D planar material / the Great Wheel" and throwing in your own assertion that the Planescape material somehow demand special treatment in canon. Other people have argued these points with you at length, and yet you continue to assert your statement as fact instead of your opinion.

Like you said about edition warring in the other thread, just say "I don't like Planescape" and move on.

Click to expand...

Come on. I asked for three examples from 3e regarding the planes and its denizens that isn't tied to Planescape lore. Obviously, since I'm mistaken about the special treatment, it should be easy to find. I know that Dungeon isn't one of the places to find this, because [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] actually flat out said that nothing Paizo published in 3e related to the planes could contradict any Planescape lore. Plus, since I own a fair number of Dungeon magazines, and a reasonably lengthy collection of Dragon, I can see for myself that Planescape is front and centre in every planar bit. Heck, even the Demonomicon articles reference Planescape.

The module Lords of the Iron Fortress borrows pretty heavily from Planescape lore.

The 3e Manual of the Planes, according to this thread, is about 90% Planescape material.

Sigil is enshrined in the 3.5e DMG.

So, again, I'll ask for three WOTC source books about the planes that don't reference Planescape.

Nellisir said:

I don't bitch about Planescape because I know a lot of people like it. That's cool. I don't like to drink IPAs; that doesn't mean the crafty beer companies should stop making them. I got really sick of Planescape back in the '90s when it took over for awhile, but that was almost 20 years ago; I can live with a low level of background noise. I've got my own setting and my own mythology that I use.

Edit: I actually have more PS material now than I did then (ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies), and I've tried reading it recently. Still doesn't do it for me, but I can appreciate it as something different.

Click to expand...

Well we at least agree about IPA's... lol, can't stand em myself. Honestly I wish I had been older when I got into Planescape, Most of the materials I had have long since been destroyed (even the campaign setting boxed set which they don't offer in PDF format ). I'd love it if they reprinted just the three main boxed sets... in one big hardback tome... Oh, and I'd also love a book on Sigil in the vein of the 3.5 Sharn book for Eberron.

Hussar said:

Come on. I asked for three examples from 3e regarding the planes and its denizens that isn't tied to Planescape lore. Obviously, since I'm mistaken about the special treatment, it should be easy to find. I know that Dungeon isn't one of the places to find this, because [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] actually flat out said that nothing Paizo published in 3e related to the planes could contradict any Planescape lore. Plus, since I own a fair number of Dungeon magazines, and a reasonably lengthy collection of Dragon, I can see for myself that Planescape is front and centre in every planar bit. Heck, even the Demonomicon articles reference Planescape.

The module Lords of the Iron Fortress borrows pretty heavily from Planescape lore.

The 3e Manual of the Planes, according to this thread, is about 90% Planescape material.

Sigil is enshrined in the 3.5e DMG.

So, again, I'll ask for three WOTC source books about the planes that don't reference Planescape.

Click to expand...

Since you define everything about the planes described in 2nd edition to be "Planescape", you would naturally see it everywhere.

What about "Lords of the Iron Fortress" (which I do not own) references "Planescape" by your definition? If it mentions Sigil, gate towns, spell or gate keys, factions or cant, you're good with that particular example. But if you're just describing references to the Blood War, physical descriptions of the planes, etc., I wouldn't consider it valid.

Savage Wombat said:

What about "Lords of the Iron Fortress" (which I do not own) references "Planescape" by your definition? If it mentions Sigil, gate towns, spell or gate keys, factions or cant, you're good with that particular example. But if you're just describing references to the Blood War, physical descriptions of the planes, etc., I wouldn't consider it valid.

Click to expand...

I'd consider Blood War references to be Planescape-specific, given that it's a particularly broad plot point. Descriptions of sites and creatures are generally not PS-specific to me.

I wouldn't contest the idea that PS is its own thing.

I WOULD contest the idea that Greyhawk ISN'T its own thing. Greyhawk is UR-D&D. Trap-filled dungeons, mad wizards, Balance Wins, fuedal wars, a strong "Sword & Sorcery in a Deadly World" vibe. Greyhawk is where you go to be as old-school D&D as D&D can be.

FR isn't like that. FR is history and epic timescales and legendary people and massive magic. It takes Greyhawk and adds a touch of legend and mythology. If Greyhawk is grimly deadly and Vancian, FR is Tokeinish and super-magical.

Dragonlance isn't like that. Dragonlance is naked heroism, a narrative setting for good vs. evil struggle with wacky sidekicks, Dragon Opera if you will. It's plucky-heroes-against-a-great-evil.

They are these things just as Planescape is shades-of-grey stories about extreme beliefs cramming up against each other in a grand philosophical conflict.

Which is to say, not excluslvely, and not always as played, but these are the things that make these settings stand out from each other. If I wanted to play a pure dungeon survival high-mortality game, I wouldn't pick Planescape for it, I'd go play Greyhawk. If I wanted a game about exploring ancient ruins and uncovering lost history to overcome present evil, I wouldn't doink around in Dark Sun, I'd dive into FR. If I wanted to play a heavily narrative game that was like Star Wars but with dragons instead of space ships, I'd bang right into Dragonlance. FR is not the most comfortable fit there. Meanwhile, if I wanted to play a game with shades of gray and with sympathetic villains, I'm looking at PS first. All of these are certainly possible in any setting, but some settings are going to be better fits than others by the nature of what those.

I mean, if I want to play a game about the struggle of divine order against primordial chaos, 4e's Nentir Vale is perfect for the job. If I try to tell that story in PS, the players are primed by the setting to ask all sorts of uncomfortable questions I don't want to consider -- "well, maybe the rampaging engine of fiery destruction has a point" is a great angle for a PS player to consider, but it's not something I want to muck about with in that kind of game. Go Nentir Vale, use the 4e alignments, and there's no question: Chaotic Evil engines of destruction are objectively worse for everyone than even Evil corruption of souls. I clearly CAN tell that story in PS, but it's not the most comfortable fit.

And all of these games are D&D games.

So I challenge the notion of "generic." Dungeoncrawling through a mad wizard's tomb isn't any more generic than "all halflings worship Yondalla." It's a specific expression of what D&D can be. It's a primordial expression, but being closer to the origin gives you no special claim to "default" in today's diverse fantasy ecosystem. It's where the game started, but anyone entering the game today can pick from a limitless menagerie of fantasy worlds and tones to embody. They should pick the one that best suits their goals for the game (or make their own if that suits their goals the best!).

D&D settings are tools you can use to enhance the feel of a particular kind of game, packages of places and NPC's and Proper Nouns that reinforce certain ideas about the desired experience you are having.

That's true with 5e's implied setting as much as it was true about Nentir or Greyhawk or Planescape or Dark Sun or your homebrew setting.