Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[Nymrohd]

What I don't get with the monster threads in WotC is whether they are testing general monster concepts or Monster Manual entries.

I think that the first MM should only have demons, devils and angels. Let the rest be added in the second or third MM or even in a Manual of the Planes theme year.

I love Planescape but I'd rather keep it separate from the basic game and only add it later on while allowing all campaign settings to have their own cosmologies (Especially Eberron!).

 

[pemerton]

No, I'm just saying they shouldn't go around invalidating it.

In my view that's too high a bar, given the amount of detail. Eg making and demons ultimate evils invalidates the Planescape lore that has "yugloths" as ultimate evils.

to the extent that they need to talk about cosmologies at all, they should endeavor to tread the line between the Great Wheel and the World Axis.

I don't think it resembles the 1e MotP much at all

I tend to agree with Obryn here - Gygax's PHB/DDG cosmology is one thing, Planescape quite another.

 

[pemerton]

The demon and devil entries aren't bad at all, but have a look at the displacer beast and the dryad. Where the monster is only one page, there is very little story text.

Comparing to my AD&D MM, I would say 4e displacer beasts have a bit more info (eg that they're prone to turning on their trainers) but 4e dryads a bit less (there is more info in the AD&D MM about how they react to strangers).

part of the issue for me is that the lore is split between the introductory paragraph and the lore DC table. Somehow this makes it seem thinner.

For what it's worth, you're not the first person I've seen post along these lines.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I tended to dislike the setting and it's lore. I disliked the factions immensely - so much so that I never used anything from the setting. I disliked the Lady of Pain and Sigil in general - and the overall tone was completely the opposite of what I enjoy. Add to the fact that I had been running an 1st ed AD&D game well into the 2nd edition, and Planescape used as assumptions some things that were the complete opposite of my assumptions (both still within what was given in 1st ed, but contradictory) that I found it completely unusable.

And the Cant was annoying to read.

So it may have been a good setting as written, for my tone and approach it is the worst D&D setting I've ever read. Only Ravenloft (the setting, not the module) or Dark Sun come close.

So yeah if they jettison a lot of that for Next, I wouldn't care. If they kept in some stuff but left off the tone I disliked I'd be cool with it - I liked what 4E did with it - getting rid of the factions and such. But please leave out Tanarri and whatever the other made up word was - just call them demons and devils. The whole other name (and leaving them out of 2nd edition) was to appease "D&D are devil worshipers" anyway*. No need to keep any of that around.

* as I understand anyone - trying to shy away from controversy.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I love Planescape, but I don't need any Planescape stuff in the "Core" setting. When I run a game in Greyhawk, Faerun, or Dark Sun, I use cosmologies from those worlds--and only a little; the campaigns primarily take place on the Material Plane. If the PC's go to the Outer Planes, I use ones specific to those worlds.

If I run a Planescape campaign, it revolves around Sigil. In my opinion, Sigil and much of Planescape is so distinctive that it inheritently doesn't fit with other worlds. It might or might not overshadow Waterdeep, for example, but it is definitely very different, maybe too different.

 

[Stormonu]

Fine, I don't think the Blood War should be core, and bring back Concordant Opposition!

I sooo like the name Outlands better than Concordant Opposition. Sounds like something a sage would call it instead of someone whose actually been there.

 

[Alan Shutko]

FWIW, to me "Outlands" would seem outer, not something stuck in the middle of so many extremes. Concordant Opposition does it for me.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, but would you really want to use 'plane of concordant opposition' if you actually had an adventure there? That's nine syllables, compared to the easy two of 'outlands.' The latter might not make much sense, but then plenty of names don't make sense. (Iceland and Greenland, anyone?)

Just sayin'.

 

[Hussar]

What was wrong with simply calling them "Grey Elves", "High Elves", or even "Sidhe"? Why repackage something at all? Dragonlance managed perfectly fine with Silvanesti/Qualinesti/Kagonesti.

Also, do take into account that you are currently losing in the poll. It's looking more like a minority want's to repackage the Planescape fluff, while the majority want to keep it.

Oh, yeah, fair enough. I realize that I'm in the minority here. So, as usual, I'll just ignore the planar stuff as much as I can.

Although, I think a lot of people are mixing Great Wheel Cosmology with Planescape, but, then again, that's probably sour grapes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

On one hand, it seems fine for the core game to not reference anything Planescape-related. From a non-Planescape perspective, this allows you to make up your own details about cosmology and planar creatures. From a Planescape perspective, the core game's vague descriptions represent what "everyone knows" about the Planes, and then the Planescape product goes on to show that it's not like that at all.

On the other hand, especially for monster descriptions, I want it to be as detailed as possible. If you don't use Planescape lore, you're senselessly ignoring tons of detail that has been added over the years.