Planescape Planescape IS D&D Says Jeremy Crawford

Planescape is Jeremy Crawford's favourite D&D setting. "It is D&D", he says, as he talks about how in the 2024 core rulebook updates Planescape will be more up front and center as "the setting of settings".

​

 

[Dausuul]

Again, it's already in the core book as the default cosmology. If you made it this long without noticing, you should be able to continue on in 2024 just fine.

You should read the 2014 PHB, DMG, and MM. You're in for a surprise.

I'm well aware that the Great Wheel is the default cosmology in 5E, thank you, and I don't like it, and I say so fairly regularly.

However, in the 2014 rulebooks, it resides mostly in the DMG and the MM, which makes it mostly straightforward to excise or modify. The only PHB elements I can think of that put the cosmology "front and center" are a handful of high-level spells (astral projection and etherealness are the two that come to mind offhand). Beyond that, it's just a scattering of references in the text, and not all that many of those. I think most are in the warlock class writeup.

When 5E was written, they were trying to reconcile 4E fans with those who stayed with 3E or went to Pathfinder, and so they tried to leave the lore flexible enough to accommodate both the Great Wheel and the (far superior) World Axis. As a side effect, that flexibility makes it easier to adapt the game to your own cosmology. I will be (pleasantly) surprised if they make a similar effort this time.

 

[Quickleaf]

Jeremy Crawford appears to be conflating 5e's default planar cosmology with Planescape-as-setting. I know that it's a narrow eye of the needle to thread, but back in the 2001 interview with David Zeb Cook (the original designer responsible with translating Slade's concept into a campaign setting) he communicates a very clear theme/tone/feel that distinguished Planescape from the previous Manuals of the Planes...

W: How much did you take from the manual of the planes and other 1st edition books?

DZC: One of the first steps is to go through existing material and cull details from it. Jeff had a lot of really good stuff in MotP, and I wanted to be as faithful as practical to it. At the same time, my instructions were to make a campaign setting and not just a place to pop out and visit. This meant trying to make things a little friendlier for adventurers (hence stuff like Sigil).

W: What inspired you to make it?

DZC: I decided I wanted to do something really different and give the planes a more surreal treatment. Aside from the tons of history I usually read, some of the other inspirations were experimental fictions (Dictionary of the Khazars, Inivisible Cities are good starts), mysticism, bizarre films, and lots of Philosophy 101, just enough to be dangerous.

I actually found Jeremy Crawford's assertions in this latest video a bit odd... I think he is conflating two senses that Planescape can be used: Great Wheel Cosmology Planescape & Themes/Tone of Planescape. He says that they're supporting homebrew GMs with the monsters, plots, and setting material being readily adaptable for your home campaign settings. Now, rilmani don't strike me as the most obvious "drag and drop" monster, so maybe this is marketing speak... But assuming it's genuine, if they want to support homebrew GMs then the better move in the 2024 DMG would be to offer cosmological options for GMs and hang less dearly to the default "Wheel" cosmology.

But I don't think he's saying they intend to incorporate more Planescape in the sense of "experimental fictions..., mysticism, bizarre films, and lots of Philosophy 101" into the 2024 core books.

Confusing that distinction leads to misunderstanding – maybe one gamer thinks "weird mysticism and philosophy" when they hear "Planescape", and they just want to dungeon delve, kill some orcs, and bamboozle the baron. Maybe they don't care so much about whatever default cosmology is there. So saying "Planescape is D&D" to that player is actually harming their interest in the game. And the example swings the other way too – watering down the unique Planescape "weird mysticism and philosophy" by focusing on "it's ALL Planescape" harms the interest of a Planescape fan. It could be, however, that NEITHER of these player types is who they're focused on selling to.

So I guess it depends what their priority is these days – support GMs' homebrew campaigns or support the multiverse meta-setting of the D&D brand. I'm of the mind that their priority is the latter, and that the former is secondary / the opinion of individual designers but not the company / lip service.

Mentioning tieflings being associated with the Lower Planes or having blurbs about "Race/Lineage X in such-and-such a setting"? That's great. But I think that example from @Kobold Avenger about playtest material pushing humans as hailing from Sigil is a sign that they're prioritizing the multiverse meta-setting.

I'm watching with interest because I've been a Planescape fan since Mimir.net, but feeling pretty jaded from the last year both in terms of quality of WotC's products & their business practices.

 

[Parmandur]

So I guess it depends what their priority is these days – support GMs' homebrew campaigns or support the multiverse meta-setting of the D&D brand. I'm of the mind that their priority is the latter, and that the former is secondary / the opinion of individual designers but not the company / lip service.

Actually pretty straight forward: they are doing both, and the reason is that based on what WotC has said in the past most homebrew is using the Great Wheel. Based on Fizban's and Bigby's, WotC is playing pretty fast and loose and presenting a smorgasbord of options rather than THE TRVTH, but that important detail is guiding their product strategy.

 

[Quickleaf]

Actually pretty straight forward: they are doing both, and the reason is that based on what WotC has said in the past most homebrew is using the Great Wheel. Based on Fizban's and Bigby's, WotC is playing pretty fast and loose and presenting a smorgasbord of options rather than THE TRVTH, but that important detail is guiding their product strategy.

Oh, I had no idea that most homebrew campaigns use the Great Wheel!

That's surprising. Thanks for letting me know! I don't recall that from WotC's old setting survey, was it from some more recent reporting?

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, I had no idea that most homebrew campaigns use the Great Wheel!

That's surprising. Thanks for letting me know! I don't recall that from WotC's old setting survey, was it from some more recent reporting?

Suuuuper old like ~2015 explanation from Chris Perkins about the Adventure strategy, which I can only.imagine still holds true since they never changed the strategy (I assume that has made things even more the case, if anuthint, in a feedback loop). I am making a slight algebraic leap, but I feel that it is justified:

What he said was that somewhat more than a quarter of all DMs use the FR (modified more or less), a bit more than half homebrew, with the last fifth-ish using every other published Setting (primarily Grryhawk followed by Eberron, but no plurality). And of the homebrewers more than half are homebrewimg worlds completely compatible.with the Forgotten Realms...and the Venn diagram of those FR-compatible homebrewrs with people who buy books is extremely high. DIYers don't buy Curse if Strahd, by and large.

So the algebra is thwt most homebrewers, specifically those who buy products, are cosmologically FR and Greyhawk compliant: they like to homebrew cities, nations, factions, bit still I'm certain bounds. See Exandria, the breakout Setting of the past decade. These are all Great Wheel compatible worlds. So, it.would seem to me that WotC is both serving these customers and their IP.

 

[darjr]

Yea, it goes like this.

Most games are homebrew of some sort. Many only borrow from WotC or other published sources.

So I think WotC is trying to have its cake and eat it too by the multiverse idea and the great wheel.

 

[Parmandur]

Yea, it goes like this.

Most games are homebrew of some sort. Many only borrow from WotC or other published sources.

So I think WotC is trying to have its cake and eat it too by the multiverse idea and the great wheel.

I would say that the design team has done a good job dancing that line so far.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I remember, having played some Storyteller games in the preceding years, getting a bad first impression of Planescape, because aspects of it's writing style and it's collection of made-up slang (I remember 'berk' and 'prime' and, particularly, the condescending attitudes conveyed), made it look like a knockoff of White Wolf's goth-punk 'tude that missed the mark, and just came off as pretentious (some would argue that White Wolf always came off that way, too, I'm sure).

Later, as I learned more about it, I was struck by the setting's need of the all-powerful Lady of Pain to arbitrarily keep the whole thing going, and decided my bad first impression wasn't quite bad enough.

I've never really been into published settings, tho, so my opinion is moot, anyway.
(Of course, Planescape is cosmology as well as setting, and, well, I guess I'd prefer to skip Sigil and all it implies, and use the pre-Planescape 1e AD&D multiverse, weird as it may have been, or the World Axis or Dawn War or whatever... maybe lift the Million Spheres from Moorcock....)

 

[Quickleaf]

I remember, having played some Storyteller games in the preceding years, getting a bad first impression of Planescape, because aspects of it's writing style and it's collection of made-up slang (I remember 'berk' and 'prime' and, particularly, the condescending attitudes conveyed), made it look like a knockoff of White Wolf's goth-punk 'tude that missed the mark, and just came off as pretentious (some would argue that White Wolf always came off that way, too, I'm sure).

Later, as I learned more about it, I was struck by the setting's need of the all-powerful Lady of Pain to arbitrarily keep the whole thing going, and decided my bad first impression wasn't quite bad enough.

I've never really been into published settings, tho, so my opinion is moot, anyway.
(Of course, Planescape is cosmology as well as setting, and, well, I guess I'd prefer to skip Sigil and all it implies, and use the pre-Planescape 1e AD&D multiverse, weird as it may have been, or the World Axis or Dawn War or whatever... maybe lift the Million Spheres from Moorcock....)

Those are really fair critiques. And your opinion is always valid - that's 90% of what we discuss is opinions and understanding each others' points of view. IIRC, the cant was a medley of Cockney Rhyming Slang and terms used by historical thieves (maybe Victorian era? can't remember).

It's fun reading David Zeb Cook's interview (he was the principal designer behind Planescape) that I shared just a few posts up because he calls out the goth-punk stuff specifically when asked about Planescape material that came out after the box set: "Most of it I liked, although I sometimes think things went too much the goth-gloom route for my taste. Of course I really liked the unplayable surreal ideas, which is maybe not so good for a game."

If the writers manage to capture that philosophical surreal weirdness in the adventure/locations in a way that's more game-able than a lot of the original PS material, that will be a huge accomplishment. It's hard to do, IME, but has big payoff at the table when it clicks.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

No. No it doesn't. The vast majority of players home brew. What is the point of a default setting?

Because new players haven't been shown how to homebrew? Probably why they put out an Acq Inc book and like seeing Exandria books - there are plenty of new-gamers who only know D&D through those things.