Manual of the Planes Revealed Over on RPG.net

[Shemeska]

The whole kerfuffle about the City of Brass being the oldest city is a perfect microcosm of the whole thing. If you got into D&D in the past 10 years or less, then Planescape completely doesn't matter to you.

Oh really? I've been playing for well under 10 years, TYVM.

*and on a side note, I don't recall anything in the 4e previews actually calling the CoB the oldest city on the planes. I think that may have just been a hypothetical tossed out in a post here on Enworld about ways to use the city.

Judge the product on its own merits. If it sucks because there isn't enough information, or poorly edited or the art is crap, then fair enough. Books suck. But, claiming it sucks because it ignores Supplement 8321xY page 213 subparagraph 2 is a big pet peeve for me.

I think it's a perfectly justified metric to compare the 4e MotP to comparable products like the 3e MotP or the various Planescape supplements, keeping in mind things like scope as allowed by page count etc. But it's silly to judge the MotP in a vacuum, ignoring that previous takes on the same or similar subjects existed.

And FWIW, I'm not asking that the 4e MotP adhere to any Planescape canon. It's not the same cosmology, not the same setting, and depending on perspective, it's a different game in many ways, so I don't expect it to be faithful to PS canon. But I'd prefer it do its own thing rather than shamble down with Igor to the Planescape product line and go about graverobbing by moonlight to make some sort of planar frankenstein back at the lab.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well personally as a PS fan I am looking forward to seeing how they reinterpret things. I could give a rat's ass to the old canon I would simply like to see how they have altered things for a new Planescape. Which is one reason I am hoping for a Planescape Campaign Setting so got a two books devoted to it, so lots to see and have fun with their reinterpretations.

*Shrugs shoulders* Maybe I am just a odd kinda of fan. But I personally enjoy seeing how different people view something I enjoy. Sure, I may not like the direction, but disliking because it is different seems daft to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Speaking only for myself, it's not so much Planescape hate, it's more just being really tired being told that the new stuff sucks because they don't properly follow books that have been out of print for over a decade. Who cares?

On these boards? It looks like Shemmy cares. I think he might be the only one that I've really seen, or at least the most passionate one. Judging from his posts, it just seems like he doesn't like 4e's decision to cut ties with the older edition material 'cuz the older edition material was good for him and didn't really need to be supplanted with something new.

I don't get the impression that it's a very...large number of people who do care. Most people here (and most people who like 4e, quite obviously) don't. I mean, I really don't, and I'm a deeply avowed PS fan.

It's the whole "They destroyed Forgotten Realms" crap all over again.

It's basically the same argument, but I wouldn't necessarily call it crap. It's totally valid to bring that up as a reason not to like the new stuff.

It just kind of surprised me, I guess, that so many posters come out with "I LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T MENTION PLANESCAPE AT ALL!"

....but still, they diagram the Great Wheel, they mention the Lady of Pain and Sigil, and one of the PP's might very well be a faction-relevant one...so maybe they did?

Does...does that mean you don't like it now?

I get being fed up with the argument (it is kind of an old one by this point, though that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be discussed), but I'm not so sure I get reacting to that exhaustion with something so...hostile? I dunno, I could easily be seeing hate where there is none, though.

The whole kerfuffle about the City of Brass being the oldest city is a perfect microcosm of the whole thing. If you got into D&D in the past 10 years or less, then Planescape completely doesn't matter to you. Why should we continue to be beholden to material that's been dead and gone for years?

There are a few good reasons to keep in the old stuff. Listing them would probably derail the thread, though. It's a choice, with consequences, benefits and rewards. Just like ditching the old stuff. There's hardly a clear-cut right and wrong in the case. It's more of a preference. And part of the reason for ENWorld is so we can all discuss our preferences.

Judge the product on its own merits. If it sucks because there isn't enough information, or poorly edited or the art is crap, then fair enough. Books suck. But, claiming it sucks because it ignores Supplement 8321xY page 213 subparagraph 2 is a big pet peeve for me.

So do all these old-school references in the product (Mercykillers, the Great Wheel, Sigil, the Lady of Pain, Bladelings, most of the monsters) turn you off of it?

I get it being a pet peeve (minis do it for me ), but did you ever think that maybe disregarding a beloved past is a pet peeve for Shemmy (or anyone else who is constantly harping about the changes that I've missed)?

It's totally okay to love the book for doing something new, and it seems like it *is* doing new things. But the PS hate seemed a bit mean-spirited to me, a bit "I love the fact that PS fans are crying right now, so I will buy the book for Schadenfreude!"

I could be totally barking up the wrong tree on it. It was just a passing observation. And I did want to point out that I am one big PS fan who is okay with the changes so far (even though I can cite you Supplement 8321xY page 213 subparagraph 2 if I wanted to).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Less Planescapey means I'll buy it!

It has 5 pages on Sigil, you better stop yourself from buying the book now.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I was hoping they devoted some of their time to covering more on some of weirder and stranger locations, they could have devoted a chapter on the "Anomalous Planes" like Far Realms and Plane of Dreams.

Well at least MoP 4e is like MoP 3e in that it's a toolkit and not like the failure that was the Planar Handbook. I don't think anyone liked having so many pages wasted on Touchstones. And while I feel that 4e should eventually reintroduce magical locations, they should put it somewhere else like a DMG.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I love Planescape, but this time i´ll be smart and avoid the flamewars by the "keepers of the true PS lore" which are bound to follow. I was burned enough with FR: "You don´t know jack! They should have not changed what i didn´t want to be changed, because that is was never should be changed! Why didn´t they just change what i didn´t care about to be changed? It makes no sense!"

No, thanks. I´ll play old Planescape while happily using the new one if it´s any good.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I'm kind of relieved that 4e isn't half-assedly bringing Planescape back in its MotP, for two reasons.

First, like Kamikaze Midget, I'd prefer to see it done well or not done at all.

Secondly, most of the stuff that made Planescape the setting so interesting - the factions, belief shaping the universe, planar cultures, focus on alignment and elemental symmetries, and tons of planar history and background - made using Planescape as a planar cosmology for a non-PS game a terrible chore.

So, a MotP that is mostly separate from Planescape - in terms of themes, fluff and crunch - is IMO a good thing for both 4e in general and for PS fans, because the setting doesn't have to be fitted into a generic cosmology.

 

[Obryn]

It has 5 pages on Sigil, you better stop yourself from buying the book now.

I'm looking for less. It's silly to think there's none.

Also, I don't hate everything in Planescape, by far. I think it's a setting of its time, though, and I never wanted to take the time to learn all the various lore (much like 3e FR). It was way too much baggage for me to leverage into a workable game - especially when, deep in my heart, I've been a fan of 1e's inherently hostile planes.

-O

 

[Rechan]

Looking at the Manual of the Planes ToC, I am exceedingly angry.

I didn't want "The Big Sites of Interest like cities", I wanted little unique sites that aren't very big, but are great adventure sites.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Looking at the Manual of the Planes ToC, I am exceedingly angry.

I didn't want "The Big Sites of Interest like cities", I wanted little unique sites that aren't very big, but are great adventure sites.

I would expect that, because many people want great adventure sites, WotC is hoping to sell those separately in modules and/or supplements.

But wouldn't more people be disappointed if the book didn't have the big sites? It would be a poor overview of the multiverse if it didn't include the largest "cosmographical" features.