Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[Alzrius]

Am I just a different age than I was 15 years ago?

There's no way to know.

 

[Imaro]

I though I explained that in some detail - it presents a world in conflict in which nearly all story elements are implicated, but the resolution to which is not yet settled - but the resolution of which will emerge through play. It's pretty much the opposite of the "metaplot" style that I associate with Planescape. The players don't discover the pre-established secrets; they (via their PCs) author the resolution to the cosmological fate of the world.

Wait... when was it decided which faction's (if any) belief system was correct? See to me that's what the central conflict in Planescape was about, and I don't think the setting ever answered it for you... in fact I would say the setting put the conflict out there and left it up to each individual group to determine through play if one, numerous, or any of the belief systems were true and how that conclusion shaped or defined the multiverse.

 

[Hussar]

I get what you are saying Siberys, but I can't believe that Hussar has such a problem with lore in the corebooks but never complained about it in 4e. I mean people complain about the problems they have with an edition all the time without a new one being on the horizon, and the fact that he chose to focus on Planescape lore originally as opposed to using 4e as an example of what he doesn't want in core just makes his proclamations of not wanting lore in core (as opposed to just not liking Planescape lore) ring pretty hollow in my ears.

Wait, what?

I believe you have completely misunderstood my point.

I am not against lore in the game. Not in the slightest. I am against keeping lore simply because it happens to be what was written before. I'm against lore for lore's sake. I do not want a dry, boring SRD style Monster manual with all the flavour stripped out.

I thought I'd made that pretty clear all the way along, but, apparently not.

It's not about lore in core books. I don't mind lore in core books at all to be honest.

What bothers me is that any proposed change to the lore of Planescape is immediately rejected, not on the merits of the idea, but solely on whether or not it's Planescape compatible.

If people were trying to shoot down any proposed change because it happened to contradict 4e canon, I'd react the exact same way. But, no one ever does. Or, at least, I haven't seen it if it does happen. But, every single time Planescape is discussed, continuity seems to be the primary concern.

-----------

See, the reason I actually liked a lot of the 4e lore is because they deliberately rejected elements that I didn't like. It fit much better with stuff that I did like, so, yeah, I liked it. They took a ridiculous trap monster like a Dryad and made it into something I would actually use in the game.

Now, did that make everyone happy? No, of course not. But, I will say that IMO, the 4e dryad is a much better designed creature than a 3e one. If 5e goes back to the trap monster Dryad, I will be kinda disappointed. Not terribly, since it just goes back on the shelf as one of those monsters that I will never use, but, yeah, I would be disappointed. I was rather happy that the 5e rust monster kept many elements of the 4e rust monster, though beefed up a bit with permanent effects. Good compromise.

But, back when these creatures were being discussed, in the run up to 4e, there were many comments that the monsters are so iconic that they can never be changed. Changing them changes the lore and thus invalidates people's campaigns. I don't care to be honest. I see clinging to the past simply because it happened to be done a certain way in the past as being incredibly lazy in design. It means that whatever they did before was perfect and cannot be improved upon.

And I never believe that.

 

[Imaro]

Wait, what?

I believe you have completely misunderstood my point.

I am not against lore in the game. Not in the slightest. I am against keeping lore simply because it happens to be what was written before. I'm against lore for lore's sake. I do not want a dry, boring SRD style Monster manual with all the flavour stripped out.

I thought I'd made that pretty clear all the way along, but, apparently not.

It's not about lore in core books. I don't mind lore in core books at all to be honest.

What bothers me is that any proposed change to the lore of Planescape is immediately rejected, not on the merits of the idea, but solely on whether or not it's Planescape compatible.

If people were trying to shoot down any proposed change because it happened to contradict 4e canon, I'd react the exact same way. But, no one ever does. Or, at least, I haven't seen it if it does happen. But, every single time Planescape is discussed, continuity seems to be the primary concern.

-----------

See, the reason I actually liked a lot of the 4e lore is because they deliberately rejected elements that I didn't like. It fit much better with stuff that I did like, so, yeah, I liked it. They took a ridiculous trap monster like a Dryad and made it into something I would actually use in the game.

Now, did that make everyone happy? No, of course not. But, I will say that IMO, the 4e dryad is a much better designed creature than a 3e one. If 5e goes back to the trap monster Dryad, I will be kinda disappointed. Not terribly, since it just goes back on the shelf as one of those monsters that I will never use, but, yeah, I would be disappointed. I was rather happy that the 5e rust monster kept many elements of the 4e rust monster, though beefed up a bit with permanent effects. Good compromise.

But, back when these creatures were being discussed, in the run up to 4e, there were many comments that the monsters are so iconic that they can never be changed. Changing them changes the lore and thus invalidates people's campaigns. I don't care to be honest. I see clinging to the past simply because it happened to be done a certain way in the past as being incredibly lazy in design. It means that whatever they did before was perfect and cannot be improved upon.

And I never believe that.

Boy do these goalposts keep shifting, that said...

I guess my answer to this is... what is the point of having lore if it changes with every edition? I play D&D to play D&D if I want a fantasy roleplaying game with different lore... there are literally thousands of them out there (or I can ignore it and make my own up), why would I want D&D lore to continuously change with every edition. I'm actually trying to think of another rpg that does this throughout editions and I'm coming up kind of blank, it seems much more common to revise mechanics and keep lore the same (Exalted, Earthdawn, Call of Cthulhu, Unhallowed Metropolis, L5R, and so on) ... or when changing lore significantly, they create a new game (oWoD vs. nWoD) We've allready had one major split in the customer base due (at least in part) to lore changes why is it necessary to continually change things? The only way I see this as feasible is if the majority of fans don't like the lore... but I don't think that was the case for the D&D traditional lore. YMMV of course.

 

[Stoat]

Where does the Great Wheel come from anyway?

Wikipedia says it was first published in Dragon #8 in 1977, and (un)reason's thread confirms that fact without going into much detail. I'd love to know why Gygax chose the setup that he did and how the planes evolved during the late '70's.

Does anybody know? Did it every come up in any of the ask Gary threads?

 

[jonesy]

Did it every come up in any of the ask Gary threads?

It did, but only in connection to the alignment system and he only talked about the alignment system part. As far as I can find.

The ones I found:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?57832-Gary-Gygax-Q-amp-A-Part-IV/page13 (post #124)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?46861-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax-Pt-3/page8 (post #80)

 

[Tovec]

They existed "altered but unbroken" in Planescape material. And in the 3E MotP. Not in the core - as in, there was nothing in (say) the 3EMM that suggested that a devil and an angel might have a drink together in a bar in Sigil.

I don't have the 3.0 books (except where they were not reprinted in 3.5 .. so I do have manual of the planes) but I'm going to hope and assume they are similar to 3.5 ones that I do own.

To that end; devils and demons. 3.5 Monster Manual. Devil has the Baatezu subtype. Demons = Tenar'ri.

Does that mean that there is a mention to Sigil? No. But we haven't really been talking about Sigil, the factions or anything like that so far so why bring it up now? Does it mention the blood war? Maybe but I didn't bother looking. But in the simple act of specifying that these creatures were not only devils and demons, but specific kinds of devils and demons they incorporated "planescape" lore. They added in rich detail and a grand history that groups can further explore. Can you equally ignore those two subtypes? Absolutely, don't go looking for what they mean and you're done.

Existed altered but unbroken seems to apply. In the core seems to apply. Sigil? No but the planes are represented. Beyond that, not mentioning sigil is a GOOD thing as it doesn't alienate people. I don't quite see your point.

I don't see why the WotC authors should regard themselves as never bound to writen anything planar that does not adhere to Planescape. (And it's not as if 4e can't be pretty easily retrofitted. The 4e MotP even has a whole page devoted to telling you how to do it.)

A whole page? Why didn't you say so?[/sarcasm] 3e's MotP has a full chapter on it. And as I already pointed out "It's not as if 3e can't be pretty easily [changed]" applies too.

My point is that (i) it didn't aim for minimalism (which is the other main alternative) and (ii) it didn't make many concessions to tradition (ie it prioritised "goodness" over continuity).

First, this isn't a continuity scale the way you think it is. A scale doesn't go from minimalist-to-good/ness.

Second, a proper scale would be minimalist-to-extremist(or maximal).. more or less meaning to range from "hands off / light touch" to "in depth / super involved". Since that is the true scale and you are saying 4e lies at the farther end of the scale then I must once again ask..

Third, in what ways does 4e differ from previous editions on making things good? All editions tried to make their lore good, 4e is not alone here..

Fourth, yes they threw out things that came before, but that by itself does not make something good. If you were watching a show for 3 seasons and the fourth suddenly replaced or severely altered EVERY aspect of it then you would be pissed. It doesn't really matter if that 4th season is good in its own right, the fact it isn't the same show would get it struck down. Now if that new show was done in tandem with the original, or was a completely new show in its own right then that would be acceptable. But merely changing things to make them "better" does not qualify as actually being better.

Well, Planescape does all that for me. It makes me rewrite how I use demons, daemons and devils. It makes me rewrite how I use the Happy Hunting Grounds, and slaads, and Nirvana.

And 4e makes me rewrite how I use nearly ALL creatures; especially extraplanars but not limited to them (looking at you core races). It also makes me reintroduce the planes that I like in the structure I like. Again, we are talking to the same thing from different sides and so far you haven't shown me why yours is special.

Which is my point. Unless you go for minimalism, someone's game is going to conflict with the lore. Planescape has no special status in this regard.

The reasons planescape is special have to do with a few factors. Not least of which is how old and continuous it is. 4e has no such claim. Next is how much remains constant. Again no such claim for 4e. I have only ever briefly used Sigil and the actual planescape game material myself but that isn't the conversation here. It isn't just planescape vs. non-planescape. It is great wheel vs. world axis.

I could write the same argument about classic pharaphonic religion vs. this new fangled christian religion. I would still only be convinced to convert from the older and more established and likely more well respected religion to the new "one true" religion if that religion was better.. not calling itself better but actually being better. As I asked before .. what makes 4e's better? What did they ADD? I can tell what they took away and I liked those elements so that part of the argument is going to fail for me. What makes it better? In what ways is it more good?

I though I explained that in some detail - it presents a world in conflict in which nearly all story elements are implicated, but the resolution to which is not yet settled - but the resolution of which will emerge through play. It's pretty much the opposite of the "metaplot" style that I associate with Planescape. The players don't discover the pre-established secrets; they (via their PCs) author the resolution to the cosmological fate of the world.

There's no double standard. What you've described isn't a game. Nor a plot. It's a thematically-laden starting point. 4e gives you that starting presmise, and then sets things up so that play will resolve the premise. (I take it for granted that it's not as tight as Dogs in the Vineyard, or Sorcerer; I think it probably is pretty close to the tightness of HeroWars/Quest played in Glorantha, though.)

So does planescape. Specifically that is planescapes thing, about how belief shapes the plane and how things are not set in stone. Is it easy? No, but it is possible. Now compare that at a base level to the elemental chaos vs. celestial spheres (or whatever those are each called). In that you are never going to change the elemental chaos. You might be able to carve out your own sphere but that's about it, the gods can't really change things so you are unlikely.

Of course, as I said in my last post, this all does ring slightly true of early (in continuity I don't know when it was written/published) canon. Law vs. Chaos was (in theory) the first conflict and that is more or less what 4e tries to set up. Perhaps that would be your hook if you wanted to use "planescape" without the baggage. Do an earlier setting where things are still being discovered and are more primordial (I can't think of a better word, no relation to the primordial gods).

(I apologize for the spelling mistakes that are coming up.) Also, metaplot? Raven queen had what to do with the shaddarki? Tharazdun is doing what and where? The party must be involved because the core books say they have to be. My problem here, outside of being "4e's version" is that is that planar/godly stuff are overly involved in PC's lives right from the get go. That IS metaplot my friend. So yes, double standard much. It would be as if the core rulebook had mentions to Sigil and how a great king lived there and that king was necessary for the party to win at their current goal. Seems like extra baggage that the game could do without in the core books, supplements perhaps but no need in core. The 3.5 PHB said things about the gods that were relevant to the PCs, but never got into Vecna's power-plays or details of Pelor's secret cabals on the planes, nor should it.

If you don't like the tropes, or the thematic premises, then you won't like the game, sure. Likewise if you don't like Marvel Comics you probably won't like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. But that's pretty orthogonal to the points I was making, which were about what happens in actual play - do you explore someone else's fiction, or make your own? 4e is set up for the group, via play, to make their own fiction.

And my point, which you seemingly ignored, is that 4e has it's own fiction and outside of being 4e's I see nothing redeeming about it but you somehow do. If I don't like marvel comics then I shouldn't be playing Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. That's fair. But if I do like Marvel and did play that game/system.. then why am I wrong when someone else comes in and tells me that the Marvel universe is wrong and we should all now use DC because its "Better"? Now, replace (my version) of marvel with planescape and DC with world axis, in case that was not clear. Planescape has priority by virtue of being here first, if nothing else. (Though there is certainly "else" as well. You just seem unfazed by those concerns.)

over the top evil gods

Which ones? Bane, who led the gods to victory in the Dawn War? Torog, whose imprisonment and torture of primordials is crucial to the endurance of the gods' victory? Lolth, whose webs held the universe together after Tharizdun's attempt to destroy it? Gruumsh, who (a bit like the Hulk) is an engine of destruction whom the gods need on their side?

I was worried that this line may have been unclear. I'm going to requote that entire passage so I can clarify.

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.

The "gods" you quoted (the last one of the bolded part) referred to the primordials. They were over the top evil. They were the titans. Super-involved "real gods" vs. over the top evil .. primordials (old gods?).

Now I'll continue..

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "over the top", but by the standards of D&D pantheon design, alignment rules and cosmology these strike me as fairly sophisticated characters whom (for instance) unaligned or even good PCs could revere for meaningful reasons.

I guess I don't really understand the particular way in which this is Disney-esque. These are pretty classic fantasy tropes, and the tensions between necessity and morality reflected in some of these gods are pretty standard material for both political/military drama and the philosophy of political action.

It was pointing out how one group is super involved but surprisingly flavourless. Or as others have cioned but I actually like.. disneyesque. The important part missed, which I'll say again: It represents everything wrong when people say L = G and C = E, taken to extremes and then said to be better.

It is a slighyly oldschool approach IMHO. It is saying that chaos = bad = demons and then making them even more 2D because of it. It is everything wrong with alignment arguments online AS a cosmology. Yes I know bane and them are evil and whatnot but the overriding alignment I see here is L-C. LG-G-N(U)-E-CE. It is saying that even if the evil gods are evil they aren't really that bad they aren't CE. It takes all nuance out of the equation and becomes disneyesque.

 

[Ratskinner]

But whether you prefer the Great Wheel or the World Axis is orthogonal to the point a number of the "anti-PS" folks are trying to make (though I can't speak for @pemerton ). Even though I prefer the World Axis, I'm totally with you that 4e built it too far into the base system. My position is that setting details should stay in the setting, beyond the barest veneer of a vanilla framing setting in the core books. Neither the Blood nor Dawn War should be a thing in Core. Not Crystal Spheres, or the Factions, or the Red Wizards of Thay, or any of the Dragonmarked Houses, or Defilers, or what have you.

I agree there.

IMO, the best "default cosmology" is one similar to the Krynnish one. Heaven, Hell, and Natural/Fey Realm. (Now that I think about it, that's pretty similar at a basic level to the World Axis, too, though switched from a Good/Evil axis to Law/Chaos...)

IMO, the best default cosmology is non-existant. The base game can refer to everything weird as "extra-dimensional" and leave it at that. Kinda like how Dresden Files refers to everything not-from-here as from the "Never-Never", except Core wouldn't need to define it. I figure if a newbie GM wants to put all this demons, devils, other "D" things in a place called "Hell"...well that's not a big leap, even for newbies.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think that Planescape lore is not sacrosanct nor privileged in any way. If changing it makes things more interesting, then it gets the chop. If keeping it is more interesting, then it stays. It lives or dies on its own merits. That it came before, is not, IMO, a merit. It's canon for canon's sake.

underlining added

I think the critical thing to realize here is that, when discussing whether or not something is "more interesting" in this context....the answer is totally subjective and thus any setting/cosmology is entirely devoid of any intrinsic merits that one could call "its own" for the purposes of linear comparison. Calling for Planescape or the World Axis or anything else to appear or not based on "its own merits" is a meaningless position.

 

[Ratskinner]

As Hussar suggests, I haven't noticed anyone calling for the retention of 4e lore. Nor am I claiming that there should be no lore in D&Dnext. Either in this thread, or the other one (I've lost track), I said there are two options:

* minimal lore (as per classic D&D);

* good lore (which is the path that 4e attempted).​

The main risk of minimal lore is that potential players, especially new ones, don't find the game inspiring. (Traveller had that effect on me big time when I first encountered it.) There are at least two risks of attempting good lore: first, the published lore can invalidate to a greater or lesser extent people's home games; second, not everyone is likely to find the actual lore that is created good.

I'm definitely in the "minimal lore" camp. With the prevalence of fantasy material available today, I would find it very surprising to find new players lacking in inspiration. Although I also recommend good advice in the DMG and/or MotP (should there be such a thing) in setting up worlds with conflicts and problems for the players to engage in. The FATE Core book includes this type of thing as part of the process for starting up a game. However FATE works pretty solidly as a "no myth" game, so that may be inappropriate for D&D.

When I look at the "good lore" path, I guess I just don't see an upside to it. At least, no upside that can't be replaced by other/additional products. I'd love to see "Setting Guides" or something that detailed the major players, conflicts, etc for a given campaign setting. It'd be like getting a Worlds and Monsters for your favorite setting. ....and each one could start with a big disclaimer page about how this information is only valid in this setting. If the Core system is flexible and generic enough, that'd be a distinct possibility. (Of course, the risk you take there is that I can pick up that book and run FATE or Savage Worlds or some other system with it just as well.)