Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[Weather Report]

Oh, yeah, I'll give you that, they definitely attempted something.

 

[GhostShip Blue]

Plain what? Is that a MTG thing or something? I'll have the curry.

To go.

 

[Weather Report]

I have an agenda which I think is transparent. Namely, I don't think that Planescape is "neutral" or "generic" lore.

It's not so much to do with Planescape/Lore, but 4th Ed, in general.

Anyway, it's all good and jiggy, baby, we dig what we dig.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If that's the test, then a sentence in the core MM about yugoloths sometimes serving evil gods, or even typically serving evil gods, is not objectionable at all. A game containing that sentence very easily facilitates a Planescape game, because that sentence is so easily ignored that it puts no barrier at all in the way of running Planescape.

Indeed. Which is why my objections with that "serving evil gods" thing don't really hinge on that argument. It's not invalidating, but that doesn't mean it's any good.

But I thought that you would object to such a sentence being in the core MM. So either you've misstated your test, or I've misinterpreted it.

There's two different cases.

"Change Yugoloths to be the servants of the evil gods" = bad because it invalidates play.

"Mention that Yugoloths occasionally serve evil gods" = bad because I just don't think it's a necessary, or even very good, addition.

 

[Balesir]

You've brought this up several times, so I just wanted to point out...

Infinite things can have centers...even if not in the normal geographic sense we're used to. Zero, for example, can rightly be considered the "center" of the real number line. Not because its halfway between the non-existent ends, but because it has special properties which divide the rest of that space neatly (at least in most Algebras). Sure, its a more colloquial usage, but there it is. Do Sigil's special properties grant it such status on the Outlands? I'll leave that as an exercise for the individual GM/group.

That's a fair point, but:

1) It applies equally well to 1. Think of numerals above 1 on one side and fractions of 1 divided by each numeral on the other. Multiplying, dividing or raising to the power "1" is different from doing the same with any other number in that it leaves the number operated on unchanged.

2) This works well for concepts - like numbers - but not so well for physical space (for which see [MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION]' post...).

meh. Given the actual known mostly-empty universe, an infinity of nothing much beyond those gate towns doesn't really bother me. Mythologies the world over utilize universes that are much smaller than a/the typical D&D cosmology. If the "standard D&D" or "Planescape" cosmology is an infinite mostly-nothing except for this interesting bit around Sigil, that would still be plenty consistent for me.

Right - all well and good, but that means they don't have to be infinite planes. In fact, it's a waste to make them so (sorry - I'll punnish myself, now...).

Even so, I would prefer very little "cosomological" stuff to be hard-wired into the game. IMO, even the presumption of a "hell" is unnecessary. I would much prefer a product with little information, but very easy to create with. I realize some information will need to be included with the critters in the MM, but I'd prefer it to be prefaced with "In most worlds..."

I agree. And I see it as an easy thing to make flexible; after all, the connections between "planes" are not physical. All you need is a few example 'places' and support for magical effects where absolutely necessary. Some outlines on a "default" mythological set of worlds/connections might be helpful for newbies, but make it clear - at least in the DMG - that the "layout" of them is very largely arbitrary. It's even quite possible for many in-game folks to have firm views that are simple, highly explanatory of their values and wrong...

I disagree with you on this. It's not contradictory that infinite planes have edges and layers; it's paradoxical, and I think that that's intentional.

My presumption here is that this seemingly-impossible configuration of limitlessness and limitedness was on purpose, that it was supposed to encapsulate the idea that the planes are a mixture of physical space and materialized metaphysical ideals at the same time. In that regard, moving through them crossed more than just physical space, and so it was quite possible to cross the Outer Planes to arrive at their "edges" as you move "away" from their metaphysical "centers."

All good concepts, but my basic point is that, if they have edges, they don't need to be off as a separate "plane of existence". The term actually loses its significance if they are concepts rather than physical spaces, anyway. If they have "edges" then they can be surrounded by stuff other than nothing - so having them in an encompassing "Elemental Chaos" or "Astral Sea" makes perfect sense.

Having them subject to metaphysical effects on travel times doesn't make them "infinite but not infinite" - it just means their local equivalent of light speed is highly variable.

On a bit of a tangent, I certainly don't assume that the "natural" creatures in my D&D world evolved. For instance, in the core 4e cosmology the world (and its inhabitants) are clearly created.

I'll tangentially reply

I would argue that any species that reproduces sexually and exhibits heritability must inevitably "evolve", even if the initial generation was created. That's just what evolution is; the idea that all creatures are related to one another is an extension to the concept, not the core of it.

Since I don't see planar creatures as reproducing sexually - and since they are often immortal - I don't see evolution as applying to them, in general. This makes them far less varied within species - which (I think) was my origianl point.

 

[Alzrius]

All good concepts, but my basic point is that, if they have edges, they don't need to be off as a separate "plane of existence".

They're not being "spun off" though, that's what they've always been. Having an infinite plane that has borders with another plane isn't enough to delegitimize the entire concept.

The term actually loses its significance if they are concepts rather than physical spaces, anyway.

I don't think it does, since they have both conceptual and physical space; it's not a one-or-the-other deal.

If they have "edges" then they can be surrounded by stuff other than nothing - so having them in an encompassing "Elemental Chaos" or "Astral Sea" makes perfect sense.

So does having them in a "Great Wheel."

Having them subject to metaphysical effects on travel times doesn't make them "infinite but not infinite" - it just means their local equivalent of light speed is highly variable.

I think that the metaphysical effects ont ravel times does showcase the quality of "infinite while still finite" nicely. It's certainly not an issue of "light speed" in a metaphysical plane where distance doesn't obey purely physical laws.

 

[Tovec]

My point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Any lore creates the risk that someone won't want it in their game and hence will have to remove it. Planescape is not in any special category as far as this is concerned.

I don't know about planescape in general. But it seems that many, if not most, of the elements tied to it are special. They existed altered but unbroken in DnD for many years. They were then tossed out to make way for "good lore" in 4e. So, yes they have a special place. You haven't yet shown me a well reasoned argument of why 4e's cosmology has a special status.

Given the general risk, I think there are two approaches that are sensible from the point of view of design: minimal lore; or good lore. Early D&D tended to go the first way. 4e attempted the second way.

As already pointed out: "Good" is highly subjective. Also, every edition, I would assume, tried to make their lore good. I fail to see how 4e was the exception here. If anything 4e was the one that threw out existing lore and therefore made it less good for long standing customers. Decidedly un-good in that sense.

The claim made upthread (post 59) was that "4e lore was largely a SUBTRACTIVE endeavor. It TOOK things away rather than giving things like plane scape did."

<snip>

I don't think that they were talking about sheer words, or whatever metrics you claim we are using, though I don't know for certain I am not in their head. My metric is how much of existing elements still remain. How many times I would have to STOP using my existing game/cosmology and start using 4e. And how many elements were retconned or wildly changed for no good or apparent reason. Eladrin as grey elves, Tieflings as human-devil pact makers. Dragonborn (with or without mammary glands). Okay, onto now chapter two..

Either way, I'm not seeing you answer the question. What did they ADD? They simplified but what did they add? What made it good lore as opposed to different lore?

My metric for RPG lore is material that will support me in running a game without turning the game into simply a journey through someone else's creative endeavour.

Um... aren't you who said...

4e lore presents a mythic history in which many (not all) of the game's races and classes have a stake, but what the resolution of that history will be, and hence what the significance of that stake, is left undecided. At its core it's a law/chaos conflict, but there are a lot of nuances within and around that - the character and fate of empires; the nature and prupose of death; questions about loyalty, and ownership, and corruption, etc.

... from later down? I thought you were.

You don't want to have to run someone else's game.. err.. endevour.. but you have no problem if all the races and classes are directly tied to a random cosmology involving the gods, primordials, etc. Interesting. Double-standard much? Yes there is no longer a law-chaos conflict, except there is, but that is all that you now no longer have. Instead all the races are directly tied to specific gods and the history of the world. That is fine if you prefer it. If not you suddenly have a whole bunch of gods that likely to not exist in people's homebrew settings being inextricably linked to the core races. Again, seems like "someone else's endevour" is much more heavily involved here.

4e lore (core books, Worlds & Monsters, plus most of the planar expansions scores high on my metric because it doesn't fall into either of the above categories. (Some vignettish parts of Open Grave, Plane Below, and Plane Above, including many of the latter's Astral islands are exceptions to this - they seem aimed at play which is primarily exploration of someone else's fiction.)

Unlike the elemental chaos, astral homes and god-primordial conflict, that was entirely different?

The 4e Blood War, for instance, isn't a yugolothic conspiracy that, in game terms, plays the function of explaining why demons (and perhaps devils) don't conquer the planes. It's a conflict between the heavens and the Abyss over the ownership of a corrupting source of power. From the point of view of the players, it's not primarily a mystery to be solved; it's a decision to be made.

If I remember the blood war correctly, and I mean the real blood war, then this is basically the "early days" of it. But beyond that, nothing here is better it is merely different. It is no more or less an incentive to participate. The players are no more or less involved.

Whether or not you think they succeeded, I think it's fairly obvious what they attempted.

All editions tried. Some thought the best idea was minimal involvement. Others (looking at 4e) tied it into everything. 4e just decided the great wheel was too silly and threw away a metric tonne of lore that had been represented for decades and decided a undescriptive but oddly super-involved cosmology of bland gods vs. over the top evil gods was a better fit. I agree with others.. that's disney-esque. It represents everything wrong when people say L = G and C = E, taken to extremes and then said to be better.

 

[GX.Sigma]

...Dragonborn...

...What did they ADD? They simplified but what did they add?

Um, dude?

 

[Imaro]

Um, dude?

I'm confused... are you implying 4e added Dragonborn? Because they existed in 3.5, 4e just changed them.

 

[Weather Report]

I'm confused... are you implying 4e added Dragonborn? Because they existed in 3.5, 4e just changed them.

Yes, those phallic noses!