Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[I'm A Banana]

Why can't the Dark Sun player just ignore that new baggage, just as I might have to ignore Planescape baggage to use mezzodaemons in the ways that I want to?

It's not a question of capability, it's a question of the game easily facilitating the kind of game you like to play or not.

If mezzoloths were defined in 5e as, I dunno, mutant scarab-people who dwelt in the deserts of the material world (in other words, something they've never been), you'd hit a bit of a barrier when you go to use them for your purposes as 4e demons. A barrier that, conveniently enough, 4e doesn't hit. If mezzoloths are part of the core of your game, something your players and you have used and have expectations about, possessing the 4e fiction that's important to your games, 5e suddenly doesn't look like a purchase that's going to help your games out much. Better off to stick with the lifetime supply of adventure that 4e already offers, since at least you don't have to edit every appearance of a mezzoloth in your game.

It's not giving you the tools that help you tell that story. Sure, you're capable of ignoring it....if 5e offers other stuff you like, maybe you will. But the more it changes, the more it invalidates your previous game, the more trouble it is to convert, the more likely you are just to never buy 5e, and just keep going with 4e.

Mezzoloths in 5e should enable you to tell the stories you've already been telling with them. They can be multivalent -- capable of being used in many different stories -- but they should retain their utility as the same kind of tools they've been used as before.

 

[Piratecat]

But the more it changes, the more it invalidates your previous game, the more trouble it is to convert, the more likely you are just to never buy 5e, and just keep going with 4e.

Actually, I'll argue that they're such different games in feel that any decision to switch will be based on more important criteria than "can I retrofit some monster and planar backstory." But I get your point.

This thread has made me realize how much I miss my much-beloved ethereal plane. Screw it, I'm adding it back into my 4e game.

 

[Nymrohd]

Actually, I'll argue that they're such different games in feel that any decision to switch will be based on more important criteria than "can I retrofit some monster and planar backstory." But I get your point.

This thread has made me realize how much I miss my much-beloved ethereal plane. Screw it, I'm adding it back into my 4e game.

So much agreed. 4E was a different beast in the timeline of D&D. I expect to see more people switching to D&DN from 3.5 and past campaigns or PF than from 4E.

 

[billd91]

So then what is the objection to new lore which Planescape players can ignore when they want to run a Planescape game?

You certainly could do so, but it still makes the new material less welcoming and attractive to people preferring or working with older lore. Like I said before, there are people who will either not move to a new edition or will delay picking it up (including delaying until it's too late) if continuity isn't sufficiently supported. In those circumstances, why would a game publisher feel that the change is a preferable strategy? Why repurpose something knowing it may harm adoption rather than create something new that doesn't have legacy implications?

 

[Nymrohd]

You certainly could do so, but it still makes the new material less welcoming and attractive to people preferring or working with older lore. Like I said before, there are people who will either not move to a new edition or will delay picking it up (including delaying until it's too late) if continuity isn't sufficiently supported. In those circumstances, why would a game publisher feel that the change is a preferable strategy? Why repurpose something knowing it may harm adoption rather than create something new that doesn't have legacy implications?

PS lore and 4E lore are incompatible if your interest is perfect continuity. You can certainly mix and match them if that is your intention but if you describe things in one way, then you are breaking continuity with the other.
So if what you say stands the issue is, which group are you more interested in attracting? The rules certainly seem to be designed to attract the AD&D and 3.5 crowd far more so than the 4E crowd.

If we treat 4E as if it was a bad nightmare how is that any more respectful than the awful marketing in early 4E that named 3.5 badwrongfun?

 

[Piratecat]

Frankly, Bill? Because the quality of old material really varies in quality, and new designers may feel that old choices were either misguided, not great for the game, or were simply dumb. Remember Bwimb? He was the 1e para-elemental baron of Ooze. Planescape (in particular, Monte Cook's Dead Gods) killed him off with about as little fanfare as you can imagine, turning him into a roadbump for Orcus. I was sad. I kinda liked him.

If you were running a ooze-heavy game, this might have been a catastrophe. I just figure Monte and Colin said "Bwimb is really, really sily," and used the opportunity to remove him from the canon.

So I understand why things get changed. You can assume that anything that's changed is done so because someone thought it was a good idea or it made the game more fun. Every change creates ripples in peoples' home campaigns, though.

 

[billd91]

Frankly, Bill? Because the quality of old material really varies in quality, and new designers may feel that old choices were either misguided, not great for the game, or were simply dumb. Remember Bwimb? He was the 1e para-elemental baron of Ooze. Planescape (in particular, Monte Cook's Dead Gods) killed him off with about as little fanfare as you can imagine, turning him into a roadbump for Orcus. I was sad. I kinda liked him.

If you were running a ooze-heavy game, this might have been a catastrophe. I just figure Monte and Colin said "Bwimb is really, really sily," and used the opportunity to remove him from the canon.

So I understand why things get changed. You can assume that anything that's changed is done so because someone thought it was a good idea or it made the game more fun. Every change creates ripples in peoples' home campaigns, though.

There are always variations in quality and a lot of that is subjective, which I think just serves to underline how carefully content redesigners have to consider changes they intend to make. Bwimb may have been butched, but continuity was also easily served by the appearance of Bwimb's offspring Bwimb II a year later. Thus, there is still an oozy para-elemental baroness out there, plotting with the likes of Juiblex. Now, maybe Bwimb II's appearance had been planned all along, in which case, good designer effort - change in story + continuity. Maybe it was a response to fan feedback, in which case, good designer response.

Like I said, if some concept seems like a good idea, you have to weigh whether it's better to repurpose something to incorporate it like eladrin becoming blink elves or to give it a whole new identity like, I dunno, Feyborn Elves.

 

[Piratecat]

The earlier statement "don't give new creatures old names" is a great one. Everyone would have been better served by giving 4e eladrin different names.

And PLEASE. "Bwimb II"? I am so not even going to dignify that wannabe pretender with a response. *sniffs off in a huff*

 

[billd91]

If we treat 4E as if it was a bad nightmare how is that any more respectful than the awful marketing in early 4E that named 3.5 badwrongfun?

That's what professional marketing is for - avoiding the awful marketing from early 4e. And that's why design articles should be vetted by someone with a good eye for the marketing so, when being candid, they can avoid saying "This was poorly done", thus implying that anyone who liked it has bad judgment even though it also takes blame on themselves, and instead say "OK, this wasn't as well received as we had hoped it would be," thus taking the blame on themselves without implying any fan has bad judgment.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm torn. I hate the extra layer of bureaucracy that a marketing lockdown imposes. It stops cold any fun designer dialog, and it often really limits what gets said about a game.

That said, those early 4e blunders... ugh.