Planescape, 4e, and the problem of worlds without history

[Shemeska]

So I suppose that I should ask: Is it at all likely that at some point we might see a Planar Landscapes: Planescape book? With all the editions of books that are being produced, could we see such a book at some point?

We might, but my question then is would we recognize it? Planescape doesn't conform to a number of baseline assumptions that 4e design has thus far forced settings beyond the core PoL to change, massively if needed, to incorporate and fall in line with. You'd have to be able to return to the massive amount of lore that 4e dropped off of a cliff and made a ton of changes to, and even incorporate material that according the 4e's marketing and even some designer comments was bad or even the antithesis of fun.

I think we'll see more planar material for 4e, but I think it'll strictly conform to the core 4e default, or else it won't be published.

Of course, Great Wheel/Planescape, default 4e world axis, etc etc... I'd love to sell you on a third option I wrote for Pathfinder.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A thing that doesn't work in a "Belief is power and shapes reality" setting:

A dead god returns. Nobody worshipped him anymore. Those that even remember him consider him dead and gone. But yet, he does. How can he ever get back to "reality" if that would require someone believing in his return?

The hidden truth about the origin of the world (or another, important thing). Nobody knows it anymore. But there are still some ancient texts speaking of it. The texts were gone, and nobody expected to find the. But digging up the ruins of an old temple unveils some of them, and unveils a terrible secret that no one would have believed.

How could such a scenario work without anyone already knowing about it and believing it?

Well, firstly, belief doesn't have to be the ONLY cause of reality in the multiverse. It's quite possible that gods animate and ancient texts exist totally independent of what people believe to be the case.

But the bigger matter is mostly: how does it affect the game?

IMXP, the consensual multiverse model means that you can go slay demons in a million different hells and it never gets old. That you can fight waves of a billion different types of angels and they all look different. That you can go to heaven and be reincarnated, both.

A more authoritarian model of existence wouldn't have that level of wiggle-room.

Not that one is necessarily better than the other, in my mind, just that a consensual multiverse gives you an open playing field. Others can be appealing in their own way.

We might, but my question then is would we recognize it? Planescape doesn't conform to a number of baseline assumptions that 4e design has thus far forced settings beyond the core PoL to change, massively if needed, to incorporate and fall in line with. You'd have to be able to return to the massive amount of lore that 4e dropped off of a cliff and made a ton of changes to, and even incorporate material that according the 4e's marketing and even some designer comments was bad or even the antithesis of fun.

Of course, I hold to the view that 4e's cosmology is "only a model" and that everything that was once in PS is still out there, even if they don't write anything about it.

It works pretty well...I'm looking forward to my PS4e campaign. I might do it via MapTool, so if people want to get in on it....

 

[avin]

I think we'll see more planar material for 4e, but I think it'll strictly conform to the core 4e default, or else it won't be published.

4E need something like Beyond the countless doorways.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Just a quick question if someone knows offhand - are the terms Baatazue and Tanari gone in 4th? I don't really recall seeing them.

 

[EATherrian]

Just a quick question if someone knows offhand - are the terms Baatazue and Tanari gone in 4th? I don't really recall seeing them.

Weren't those mostly gone by 3rd edition? I don't think I've noticed it in the 4E MM, so I believe they are finally gone.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Weren't those mostly gone by 3rd edition? I don't think I've noticed it in the 4E MM, so I believe they are finally gone.

Yeah, in 3rd they were something like subraces of Demons and Devils IIRC.

I'm also happy the terms are gone - they always seems a relic of WotC being afraid of religious extremists ... they could say "See we don't have demons or devils in the game anymore".

 

[nightwyrm]

Yeah, in 3rd they were something like subraces of Demons and Devils IIRC.

I'm also happy the terms are gone - they always seems a relic of WotC being afraid of religious extremists ... they could say "See we don't have demons or devils in the game anymore".

You can't blame WotC for this one. That began in 2ed by TSR. WotC just continued it when they bought D&D.

Although to be fair, MtG had stopped making demons and demonic references for a number of years because of the same reasons.

 

[Shemeska]

Weren't those mostly gone by 3rd edition? I don't think I've noticed it in the 4E MM, so I believe they are finally gone.

They were still present through all of 3.x, but as the proper names of the two major demonic and diabolic races. All tanar'ri are demons, but not all demons are tanar'ri. Demons as a group for instance contained tanar'ri, loumara, and obyriths as distinct races, and also tons of other CE fiends that didn't fall into specific groups. Same for devils, less so for 'loths but that fit their flavor.

I haven't noticed the names in anything in 4e, but the 4e material junked the history and lore of the fiends developed over the past thirty years, so they might as well change their names while they're at it if they want. Different creatures, different name.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

You can't blame WotC for this one. That began in 2ed by TSR. WotC just continued it when they bought D&D.

Wrong Company Acronym. I meant TSR - I knew that all started with the advent of 2nd edition. Strangely the only edition of D&D I didn't play. And the only setting for it I loved was Spelljammer.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I haven't noticed the names in anything in 4e, but the 4e material junked the history and lore of the fiends developed over the past thirty years, so they might as well change their names while they're at it if they want. Different creatures, different name.

Yeah, that about what I was seeing, and why I was happy to see the 2nd ed names go. I skipped 2nd ed (and pretty much all of their settings, the only one I really liked was Spelljammer). So I got third edition stuff and read it and was like Tanari, Baatezu, Sigil, Lady of Pain.. what is up with this, this wasn't in the D&D I remember (I remembered it pretty well, we played our houseruled 1st ed rules until 3rd came out).

Starting 4th with a clean slate and new cosmology was gutsy, and I love what came out of it... as I never really got into the stuff for 2nd (or Planescape), I didn't feel much loss.