WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Remathilis]

To add a bit of support to this, when Ravnica was published, a bunch of Planescape fans complained that the book being published would guarantee that Planescape would never get an official 5e book. And with Planescape getting an official release next year, we know with 100% certainty that those people were wrong.

There was also a fair bit of grumbling over Radiant Citadel replacing Sigil early on, until Ray Winninger came out and said that it was doing nothing of the sort as clearly as he could without announcing Planescape early.

Just so. A lot of rage was wasted assuming both of these settings were trying to usurp Sigil. I can only imagine what rage would be spent if they made Bravenloft instead of using their classic horror setting...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That was before Ravenloft (and later Spelljammer) was released. Now I have no faith that they'll do a good job with Planescape, given the huge lore changes of Ravenloft and paucity of material in Spelljammer. I'm actually expecting the worst of both worlds.

I don't have much experience with Planescape (I like Sigil, but I think the Great Wheel is a terrible cosmology), but does it have much problematic content that needs changing? Does it not fill its intended role as well as it could? Because those were the two main driving factors behind the changes to Spelljammer and Ravenloft.

Spelljammer replaced the Phlogiston with the Astral Sea because D&D's cosmology is already complicated enough, the Phlogiston isn't fun to play in, and "Astral" literally means "starry", so they just did the obvious thing and dropped the Phlogiston for the Astral Sea. WotC thought that the Phlogiston wasn't fulfilling the main goal of Spelljammer, having fun space adventures in D&D, and so they dumped the idea they thought was bad and replaced it with one they thought was better and cooler (being able to visit the corpses of dead gods in the plane of stars).

Ravenloft changed to get rid of most of the problematic stuff (changed Vistani into a multi-racial culture and got rid of some of the Romani stereotypes, dropped Caliban for Hexblood, changed up some of the Domains of Dread), but it also changed because the setting's main goal is to be D&D's horror setting. And the entire concept of "The Core" in Ravenloft doesn't work well with horror adventures, because horror adventures work better when the characters feel isolated and claustrophobic (stuck in a small space without anywhere to run).

I know that I think Planescape doesn't fill its role as well as it could, because I think the Great Wheel is bad, but I'm pretty sure WotC doesn't share that same opinion. They like the Great Wheel so much that they found a way to cram it into Eberron. So I doubt that WotC would "ruin" the setting in the way that I would. I'm about as hesitant about buying the Planescape book(s) as I am about Dragonlance, but for very different reasons.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If you're not going to update with consistent lore, I personally would prefer either a straight mechanical update or no update at all.

If the book gives you all the mechanical updates you want, and that's all you need to play the setting the way you want, why in the world does it matter if it changes lore?

 

[Umbran]

What the old saying 80% of your product is bought by 10-20% of your customers.

One way to read that is "your 'core customers' are very important to your business".

Another is "most of your product is stuff that nobody really needs, and you are failing to focus on stuff that will actually sell well."

If 80-90% of your customers don't buy most of your stuff, you are really bad at knowing what your customers want or need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't have much experience with Planescape (I like Sigil, but I think the Great Wheel is a terrible cosmology), but does it have much problematic content that needs changing? Does it not fill its intended role as well as it could? Because those were the two main driving factors behind the changes to Spelljammer and Ravenloft.

Spelljammer replaced the Phlogiston with the Astral Sea because D&D's cosmology is already complicated enough, the Phlogiston isn't fun to play in, and "Astral" literally means "starry", so they just did the obvious thing and dropped the Phlogiston for the Astral Sea. WotC thought that the Phlogiston wasn't fulfilling the main goal of Spelljammer, having fun space adventures in D&D, and so they dumped the idea they thought was bad and replaced it with one they thought was better and cooler (being able to visit the corpses of dead gods in the plane of stars).

Ravenloft changed to get rid of most of the problematic stuff (changed Vistani into a multi-racial culture and got rid of some of the Romani stereotypes, dropped Caliban for Hexblood, changed up some of the Domains of Dread), but it also changed because the setting's main goal is to be D&D's horror setting. And the entire concept of "The Core" in Ravenloft doesn't work well with horror adventures, because horror adventures work better when the characters feel isolated and claustrophobic (stuck in a small space without anywhere to run).

I know that I think Planescape doesn't fill its role as well as it could, because I think the Great Wheel is bad, but I'm pretty sure WotC doesn't share that same opinion. They like the Great Wheel so much that they found a way to cram it into Eberron. So I doubt that WotC would "ruin" the setting in the way that I would. I'm about as hesitant about buying the Planescape book(s) as I am about Dragonlance, but for very different reasons.

My feelings on Ravenloft are clear to anyone who has read my many posts on the subject, so I'm leaving that alone for now.

As to Spelljammer, I found a way to fit the Astral Sea into my phlogiston-laden view of the setting, so that's fine. My issue with the new product is the same as everyone else's: not nearly enough material for what they wanted me to pay them for it. As the profit margin on the new format is likely pretty good, I expect the same anemic result for Planescape, even if the lore is not substantially different (which of course we can't know yet).

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the book gives you all the mechanical updates you want, and that's all you need to play the setting the way you want, why in the world does it matter if it changes lore?

Because I'm pretty happy with the setting as it stands, and hate changing history, even the fictional kind.

I know we've talked about this.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I don't have much experience with Planescape (I like Sigil, but I think the Great Wheel is a terrible cosmology), but does it have much problematic content that needs changing?

I mean, there's some stuff related to the Factions that went to problematic places, but that was half the point in a lot of cases.

For example, the Mercykillers, a Faction that nominally believes in "Justice" as a cosmic law, running Sigil's Prison system, "streamlining" the sentencing process to make the punishment options for literally every crime either a decade of hard labor or prompt execution, and then having a growing tendency toward inmates being used as effective slave labor for any number of operations in furtherance of the Faction's goals, or even sold/contracted out to fiends and the like.

And yet there are members both supporting and explicitly resisting these trends within the Faction, and as a result of the Faction War it actually split in two - (re)creating the Sodkillers ("Might Makes Right") and the Sons of Mercy ("Justice Tempered By Mercy") - and lost unilateral control over the city's correctional policies and facilities.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As to Spelljammer, I found a way to fit the Astral Sea into my phlogiston-laden view of the setting, so that's fine. My issue with the new product is the same as everyone else's: not nearly enough material for what they wanted me to pay them for it. As the profit margin on the new format is likely pretty good, I expect the same anemic result for Planescape, even if the lore is not substantially different (which of course we can't know yet).

So you don't actually hate lore changes to older settings. You just don't like it when it applies to the settings you like.

Because I'm pretty happy with the setting as it stands, and hate changing history, even the fictional kind.

I know we've talked about this.

But you already have the lore as it stands. The newer books changing that will do nothing to you or your table. If the newer Dragonlance book said that the Feywild exists and gnomes come from it, that wouldn't change how you play the setting in 5e because you already have everything you need to play the setting (older lore + newer mechanics).

If you insist on something staying the same just because you like it even though it won't affect you, you're getting overly upset at something that does not matter to you. It's just wrong. That's an unhealthy way to engage in media.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mean, there's some stuff related to the Factions that went to problematic places, but that was half the point in a lot of cases.

For example, the Mercykillers, a Faction that nominally believes in "Justice" as a cosmic law, running Sigil's Prison system, "streamlining" the sentencing process to make the punishment options for literally every crime either a decade of hard labor or prompt execution, and then having a growing tendency toward inmates being used as effective slave labor for any number of operations in furtherance of the Faction's goals.

And yet there are members both supporting and explicitly resisting these trends within the Faction in question, and as a result of the Faction War it actually split in two - (re)creating the Sodkillers ("Might Makes Right") and the Sons of Mercy ("Justice Tempered By Mercy") - and lost unilateral control over the city's correctional policies and facilities.

So, just satire. That doesn't seem problematic to me. Unless they listed them as "Lawful Good" or something dumb like that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Timeline advancement is less of an issue if they continue to support the previous time periods' crunch where applicable.