Codex of Betrayal

[MerricB]

Looking forward to them!

Cheers!

 

[Knightfall]

It'd be very cool if they were open to queries on exactly that.

Yes, but you'd have to write it for the 4e cosmology. Wouldn't that bug you?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Isn't Kobold Quarterly doing something like this as well? (There's plenty of room for major devils, of course.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

It'd be very cool if they were open to queries on exactly that.

I'm surprised you're interested, to be honest.

I'll tell you straight up, man... If you want to write planar- or fiend-related stuff for Insider, you might want to tone down the "I hate the new 4E cosmology" posts in public forums.

I can't speak for Chris, of course, and I'm not saying that you have to like every last detail of an edition to write for that edition. But you're talking about a series based heavily on an aspect of the game that you've been very vocal about hating. That could definitely hurt your chances--not for Insider as a whole, but certainly for this series or other related topics.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes, but you'd have to write it for the 4e cosmology. Wouldn't that bug you?

If the articles are mostly restricted to Hell and the World (which they probably would be), I suspect it'd be hard to tell the difference.

 

[Shemeska]

If the articles are mostly restricted to Hell and the World (which they probably would be), I suspect it'd be hard to tell the difference.

Bingo.

 

[Knightfall]

If the articles are mostly restricted to Hell and the World (which they probably would be), I suspect it'd be hard to tell the difference.

True. However, like Mr Mouse. I'm surprised Shemmy would even consider writing anything for 4e. It's no secret that he doesn't like the new cosmology.

Still, it's his choice, and if he goes ahead and writes for Codex of Betrayal, then I'd want to read it for sure.

Shemmy knows his stuff.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't doubt Todd's ability to write material without too much reference to obscure, no-longer-applicable canon material . . . but of course there would be some!

 

[Shemeska]

True. However, like Mr Mouse. I'm surprised Shemmy would even consider writing anything for 4e. It's no secret that he doesn't like the new cosmology.

It's still planar related, regardless of my personal feelings on various parts of the 4e reboot. I don't have to use something to be able to come up with ideas for it, or riff off of those new ideas. I've seen some good ideas for a truly Planescape game set in the 4e cosmology (admittedly they were written by Rip van Wormer who is a robot powered by pure awesome).

But let's get away from Planescape for a moment. You can certainly have planar without Planescape. Though it's my favorite take on the whole genre, it didn't stop me from thinking that Beyond Countless Doorways was a spectacular book, nor -really- liking some (but not all) the 3e innovations/changes (a full shadow plane rocks, and FC:I's partial revision of fiendish origins was awesome) nor does it even mean that everything I write is lockstep with the tropes of Planescape. -Trust me on that last one-.

God knows my own campaign/storyhour has some massive deviations from a classical Planescape game. There's no one true take on that setting: witness my interpretation having been introduced to it after 3e was out, versus people who played it when it was first in print. By extension, there's no one true view of a planar campaign in D&D, just preferences, and I simply happen to have strongly held ones (combined with more than my fair dose of internet toughman).

So don't be shocked and amazed that I'd still be interested in writing something for the 4e cosmology. The general topic is still my favorite (fiends, fiends, and more fiends), and I'd have a blast being able to contribute to an even radically different interpretation of the subject, assuming it's not all being written in-house or with freelancers already cleared for 4e (assuming that I'd even be considered in the first place).

 

[Knightfall]

But let's get away from Planescape for a moment. You can certainly have planar without Planescape. Though it's my favorite take on the whole genre, it didn't stop me from thinking that Beyond Countless Doorways was a spectacular book, nor -really- liking some (but not all) the 3e innovations/changes (a full shadow plane rocks, and FC:I's partial revision of fiendish origins was awesome) nor does it even mean that everything I write is lockstep with the tropes of Planescape. -Trust me on that last one-.

Okay, so you're not totally disgusted by the 4e cosmology. I'm sort of the same way. The Astral Sea idea is kind of interesting, and I like the idea of expanding the fey and shadow planes. I just wish they would have stuck with "Faerie" and "Shadow" instead of the new names that go against canon. I am not a fan of the Elemental Chaos as a replacement for the Elemental Planes. It's an interesting concept by itself; however, I don't think it should be part of the core cosmology.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what the new Manual of the Planes gives us. That might be the ONLY 4e book I buy. I haven't decided yet.

God knows my own campaign/storyhour has some massive deviations from a classical Planescape game. There's no one true take on that setting: witness my interpretation having been introduced to it after 3e was out, versus people who played it when it was first in print. By extension, there's no one true view of a planar campaign in D&D, just preferences, and I simply happen to have strongly held ones (combined with more than my fair dose of internet toughman).

Actually, I totally understand this. My Mirrored Cosmology isn't the classic Great Wheel cosmology by any means. It's inspired almost as much from Beyond Countless Doorways as it is from Planescape. Still, my cosmology should not be the core D&D cosmology. It deviates from canon too much.

I guess that's my problem with what I've read and seen about the new 4e cosmology. It destroys canon, IMO, instead of rebuilding it with a better framework.