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".

​

 

[pemerton]

D&D should have a default setting. I can't think of many RPGs that don't have a default setting.

Rolemaster. Burning Wheel. Original Classic Traveller. Torchbearer. Dungeon World. HeroQuest revised. I think it's quite common.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Rolemaster. Burning Wheel. Original Classic Traveller. Torchbearer. Dungeon World. HeroQuest revised. I think it's quite common.

Does that mean that the books have any implications on what settings should include for mechanical or roleplay purposes, or am I simply struggling to think about what that means having not read the rules of these systems?

 

[cranberry]

Whatever... My friends and I will continue to use FR.

In an "everything goes" multiverse, nothing has to be consistent, make sense, or tie into anything else.

It's clearly a business decision made to give the content creators as much flexibility as possible.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But now, If I would go planescaping and go to ebberon or exandria, suddenly I also have another feywild, another ravenloft another shadowfell, other gods that all have no relations to my stuff in the forgotten realms.

I guess this is why WotC is putting out all those videos (that you clearly haven't watched) to explain what the Planescape setting is, because it isn't that.

The general conceit of the D&D multiverse is that there are multiple prime material planes. This has been true since before I started playing in 1982, and largely exists so players can move their favourite characters between different campaigns (very common in the early days of D&D). For example, the original Dragonlance setting book dedicated a lot of it's space to importing characters from different settings. The general assumption tends to be that there are not multiple copies of the other planes, although most of them are infinite, and therefore include everything that can possibly exist on that plane. Of course, DMs are free to rule otherwise, in order to resolve some discrepancy perhaps.

But, despite the existence of all these planes, most D&D campaigns take place mostly on one, on account of planer travel being DIFFICULT and RARE. It is, of course, possible to create a "setting-of-the-week" campaign. The Radiant Citadel is an example of this, but it's very much the exception. In my 40 years of experience DMing, most campaigns have the occasional short visits to other planes, but the vast majority of the action takes place on one. Baldur's Gate 3 is an example of a typical D&D campaign in this respect. It visits about 3 other planes, but about 95% of the action takes place in the Forgotten Realms. And Planescape (1994 and 2023) is no exception to this. Despite the name, the vast majority of the action takes place in Sigil and it's surroundings. Sigil is also know as "The Cage" because it is so difficult to leave, even for a high level wizard with a belt full of tuning forks. Again, you can see this by looking at the CRPG version of Planescape, which rarely leaves Sigil.

 

[Remathilis]

It's clearly a business decision made to give the content creators as much flexibility as possible.

Yes, and?

I fail to see where the problem of "it's all D&D" and "mix and match what you want" is. If you want a curated list, be my guest. WotC is serving a huge buffet and you are free to take what you want. Even if you want mashed potatoes and gravy on your waffle.

 

[pemerton]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to play D&D without playing D&D.

Sometimes I want to play D&D. But I have never been interested in the approach to D&D in which the world of my game is just one, perhaps an insignificant one, of many worlds. I know the "parallel prime material planes" thing is an idea with a long history, but I've never found it appealing and don't regard it as part of playing D&D.

They are selling the notion that no matter if you are playing Eberron, Faerun or Bob's homebrew, you're part of a larger collective community and in theory PCs from different worlds and settings can meet up and share adventures. That villains like Tiamat or Venca can threaten multiple worlds. That great artifacts like the Deck of Many Things can appear in any world and then disappear off to the next. That powerful archimages like Tasha or Mordenkainen spread magical knowledge to all manner of places, and that if you want a dhampir warlock from Barovia, a gnome artificer from Sharn, a kender sorcerer from Solomnia and a gith fighter from the Rock of Braal to meet up in a pub in Sigil and stop a plot by Orcus, by God do what you will.

That has always been the implicit nature of D&D's multiverse. You're welcome to ignore it the same as any bit of lore or rule, but I see no problem with WotC trying to connect the community together and say "it's all D&D".

I think the idea isn't to turn D&D into a world/reality hopping setting (unless you want it to) but to establish certain commonalities exist through all the worlds of D&D. Not a radical or new idea, just one where they embrace that each setting is part of the greater whole rather than an isolated island.

In both these posts the bit that I've bolded doesn't entail the rest. Yes, there is a community of D&D players, and because they are playing D&D commonalities exist in the worlds that they imagine - the rules for PC build, including the spell lists; the magic item lists; and the Monster Manual, all bring this about.

But this doesn't have any implication that (for instance) my imaginary world and its cosmology, metaphysics etc are related to your imaginary world with, perhaps, a quite different cosmology, metaphysics etc.

 

[pemerton]

Does that mean that the books have any implications on what settings should include for mechanical or roleplay purposes, or am I simply struggling to think about what that means having not read the rules of these systems?

Rolemaster has PC build, magic item and monster lists that suggest a fantasy setting broadly along the lines of mainstream D&D c 1980.

Dungeon World draws self-consciously on classic D&D as an inspiration, so posts a similar sort of setting. Torchbearer is similar, but with a stronger default towards a Northern European vibe, and more Tolkienesque Elves, Dwarves and Halflings.

Burning Wheel has even more Tolkienesque Elves, Dwarves and Orcs, and its lifepaths for humans suggest a more historically-informed mediaeval feel with a slight undertone of sword-and-sorcery. I have run both Torchbearer and Burning Wheel games using Greyhawk as my background setting, and could easily do the same for Dungeon World.

Classic Traveller (1977) posts an interstellar navy and scout service, and also nobles who travel between worlds in their interstellar yachts. It also has rules for world generation, including populations and forms of government, which permit a fairly wide variation but also imply a certain sort of interstellar society in which the navy and scouts and nobles do their things. Both fan publications (eg in early White Dwarf) and subsequent "official" publications suggested various setting possibilities that built on these foundations.

HeroQuest revised uses free descriptors for PC build, and its action resolution system can apply whatever the descriptors, so it doesn't imply any setting at all. Robin Laws does have a sidebar in which he says that the system and GMing advice are oriented broadly towards adventure gaming, and that if you want to do something more avant garde, like using the system to run a drama or something in the style of an 80s teen sex comdey, the necessary adaption is left as "an exercise for the more aesthetically daring reader".

 

[Remathilis]

Sometimes I want to play D&D. But I have never been interested in the approach to D&D in which the world of my game is just one, perhaps an insignificant one, of many worlds. I know the "parallel prime material planes" thing is an idea with a long history, but I've never found it appealing and don't regard it as part of playing D&D.


In both these posts the bit that I've bolded doesn't entail the rest. Yes, there is a community of D&D players, and because they are playing D&D commonalities exist in the worlds that they imagine - the rules for PC build, including the spell lists; the magic item lists; and the Monster Manual, all bring this about.

But this doesn't have any implication that (for instance) my imaginary world and its cosmology, metaphysics etc are related to your imaginary world with, perhaps, a quite different cosmology, metaphysics etc.

Keep in mind that WotC's not forcing you to abandon your homebrew cosmology. What they are trying to do is create a shared game that is more than just mechanics being shared. Where things like Venca or Moradin or the Deck of Many Things can show up anywhere if the DM wants. There doesn't have to be "This is Eberron, Venca isn't a thing here." If the DM wants to put Venca in his Eberron game. That the PC I made in Bob's game could (if allowed) portal to Susie's game and keep being played there.

Frankly, that's as old school as you can get. The old guard players I know (who played before I even knew about the game) used to talk about porting PCs from DM to DM using portals and magic. That Bob's world and Susie's world both somehow had the City of Greyhawk on them. Or that players would take PCs across genres, as the 1e DMG implies in its conversion rules from Boot Hill and Gamma World.

The notion that a DM's world is a isolated, curated garden of world building that would make GRR Martin jealous is a more recent take on gaming. And there is nothing wrong with deciding you want only D&D's rules and none of its lore. But people taking offense that Wizards would dare say we're all part of the same D&D Multiverse just because we all play D&D is a bit hard to take.

 

[Echohawk]

But I have never been interested in the approach to D&D in which the world of my game is just one, perhaps an insignificant one, of many worlds.

Tough! It's D&D canon, so if my players decide they want to visit/invade/lick your game world, they can. Mwuahaha!

 

[pemerton]

Keep in mind that WotC's not forcing you to abandon your homebrew cosmology.

I never suggested otherwise. I was replying to your assertion that, by ignoring "multiversal" stuff I'm playing D&D without playing D&D.

What they are trying to do is create a shared game that is more than just mechanics being shared. Where things like Venca or Moradin or the Deck of Many Things can show up anywhere if the DM wants. There doesn't have to be "This is Eberron, Venca isn't a thing here." If the DM wants to put Venca in his Eberron game. That the PC I made in Bob's game could (if allowed) portal to Susie's game and keep being played there.

To me, this has nothing to do with any multiverse.

One of the characters in my Prince Valiant game was gifted the Mace of St Cuthbert by the Emperor in Constantinople. This does not mean that there is any in-fiction connection between the quasi-Arthurian Britain, Europe and West Asia of that game, and the World of Greyhawk. It just means that it seemed like it might be fun to borrow a trope and drop it into the game.

I have used Vecna in one form (as a lich) in a Rolemaster game played using Greyhawk as the setting, and in another form (as a god) in a 4e D&D game played using the default 4e cosmology as the setting. Those are not the same character within their respective fictions, and again there is no in-fiction connection between the settings. It's just fun to use Vecna. If someone wants to use Vecna in their Eberron game, they can knock themselves out! But that doesn't require them, their players, or anyone else, to imagine that, in the fiction, Eberron and Greyhawk are related in any fashion.

In the RM/GH game I mentioned just above, I added a third, black, moon to the world of Oerth, and included a tripartite order of Wizards of High Sorcery as part of my setting. This didn't imply that, in the fiction, there was any connection between the world of our game and Krynn or Dragonlance. I just thought that the idea of WoHS, with their coloured robes and their different ethoses and spell options, was fun for a fantasy setting.

Frankly, that's as old school as you can get. The old guard players I know (who played before I even knew about the game) used to talk about porting PCs from DM to DM using portals and magic. That Bob's world and Susie's world both somehow had the City of Greyhawk on them. Or that players would take PCs across genres, as the 1e DMG implies in its conversion rules from Boot Hill and Gamma World.

I've got no view on how old guard it is, but this is not something I've ever done.

I have played my knightly cleric Thurgon in a 2nd ed AD&D game (he was a Skills and Powers cleric), in two 4e games (he was a STR paladin with warlord multi-class), in Dungeon World (he was a paladin) and in Burning Wheel (he is a Knight of a Holy Military Order), but this is not literally the same character, within the fiction, moving from world to world. This is me building the same character to play in those different games, using their various mechanics, becase I enjoy him.

The notion that a DM's world is a isolated, curated garden of world building that would make GRR Martin jealous is a more recent take on gaming. And there is nothing wrong with deciding you want only D&D's rules and none of its lore. But people taking offense that Wizards would dare say we're all part of the same D&D Multiverse just because we all play D&D is a bit hard to take.

I've taken no offence at anything anyone has said, let alone WotC whose marketing can include whatever they want.

I was just disagreeing with your assertion about what it means to play D&D.