Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

derp

See any thread about planar monsters. The complaints are about ideas not being Planescape-compliant not PHB1 appendix-compliant.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I "care" in the sense that I don't want WotC changing the lore of TSR settings. ("I'll take 'mixed track record' for $500, Bob.")

I loved Torment, but never was interested in running a campaign in planescape. I agree that ramming planescape into every single setting was an obnoxious design choice.

 

[Ratskinner]

I like Planescape. It was one of my favorite 2e-era D&D supplements. I loved running adventures around Sigil.

However, as much as is possible, I'd prefer D&D as a whole did not have a "default" cosmology. I would much prefer DM advice about building such a thing. (Really, I don't think much is actually necessary.) Any DM or group should feel completely open to use whatever cosmology they want without re-writing or ignoring gobs of fluff. If they feel compelled to include the previous cosmologies as examples....so be it, I guess.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't know the whole history of Planescape. I do know that the Great Wheel is to me a really quintessential part of D&D. I've never used any published settings or really any fluff-type content whole cloth except that planar structure. To me, it's the only thing that makes the alignments and the extraplanar creatures in the monster manual make any sense.

The 3e MotP is definitely on my short list of best rpg books I own. The 4e cosmology would be a turnoff if the rest of it already wasn't, partially because it's different and partially on its own merits. That said, I liked the 3.0 MotP not just because it explicated the Great Wheel (which to me is the default for D&D) but also because it gave a lot of really robust and different options. Sigil is good. Options are better.

Bottom line answer to the poll question is yes though. It does matter.

 

[timASW]

I really liked planescape. I thought it made perfect sense and did a good job of tying a lot of real mythology into D&D.

However, I liked the 4e cosmology better. I dont like the system at all but the cosmology is something close to what I had houseruled anyway and I really thought it was a lot better in its original concept then the great wheel. I didnt get any 4e supplements though so i dont know what happened to it after the original details from the first big 3.

 

[KidSnide]

I think Planescape was a cool setting, and it has the particular property of allowing you to use it as a "meta-setting" that binds any arbitrary set of worlds together. But just because you've written a meta-setting that could have any world in it, that doesn't mean that every other campaign you write is actually just a tiny corner of the meta-setting.

If I'm playing a Planescape game, it might be cool to visit Krynn. (Maybe not. Seems random to me. But the ability to visit anywhere is a plus.) But if I'm playing a Dragonlance game, it is decidedly not cool to leave the world that the game is about and spend valuable gaming time in a bizarre astral crossroads.

But I hope WotC re-releases the original Planescape set. I was put off by the strange art (and stranger language) when it first came out and would be interested in reading more.

-KS

 

[Callahan09]

I'm no expert on the matter but it seems to me that TSR created the Planescape campaign setting in the first place because the fans missed the Manual of the Planes from first edition but Lorraine Williams didn't want the angels and demons and devils in the game anymore so they came up with Planescape as a sort of new version. That material was meant to be part of the default lore for D&D and sort of explain the whole concept of having multiple "campaign settings" (tie it all together) from the very beginning of the first edition. Planescape in 2nd edition was just a workaround to include the basics of that concept in a tonally different manner without the so-called "satanic" aspects. By third edition it was back to default again because Wizards wisely abandoned the concept of religion avoidance. Then in fourth edition they simplified it greatly. Personally I like what they did with it in 4e. It is simple enough and informative enough to give you a ton of room for creativity and to do your own cosmology building. I would prefer if they kept it more along those lines for 5e but whatever... I like 4e a lot and everybody else seems to dislike it so what do I know?

 

[Jester David]

I care a little. I'm more a Ravenloft fan so it was always tangental to me. (However, the old cosmology was better for Ravenloft).

However, I know that for many people, Planescape was their favourite. It was their favourite setting. And there are those who love the 1e-3e lore of the worlds and planes.
So why take away someone's favourite world? Why take away someone's favourite bit of the game? Even if they're the vast minority, even if their views are opposite mine, it doesn't affect me and brings them joy. Let them keep it.

 

[JasonZZ]

Lemon Curry. I care about it to the exact extent that it is not mandatory--that it either is not default or easily removed with zero consequences. Wiring the Great Wheel into the mechanics is a no-go for me. One of the things that bugged me about 3.X was the fact that things like alignment and planar effects were defined mechanically, and could not be removed without an obnoxious amount of work.

 

[timASW]

Lemon Curry. I care about it to the exact extent that it is not mandatory--that it either is not default or easily removed with zero consequences. Wiring the Great Wheel into the mechanics is a no-go for me. One of the things that bugged me about 3.X was the fact that things like alignment and planar effects were defined mechanically, and could not be removed without an obnoxious amount of work.

Along that road I would prefer a flat out good and evil with it being restricted to supernatural beings and mortal beings all being some shade of neutral magically.