Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
We disagree. No worries. I’m not here to argue. What I have to say is a explained in my main posts (three and soon to be four)
D&D General Manual of the Planes: The Switch to a Standard Multiverse, and Why it Matters (Part 2)
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
We disagree. No worries. I’m not here to argue. What I have to say is a explained in my main posts (three and soon to be four)
dave2008
Legend
If your not here to argue, i.e. discuss ideas and interpretations of the evidence, then why the heck are you posting?We disagree. No worries. I’m not here to argue. What I have to say is a explained in my main posts (three and soon to be four)
Last edited:
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Personally, I think that there is a difference between arguing on the internet, and discussing ideas. I think some people enjoy reading about the history of the game, seeing a little effort in research, and appreciate some thought on the subject matter. But I am not obligated to argue with every single person who feels very strongly that I am wrong, am I?
Now, if you'll notice the first post made by Umbran was basically, "Hey, you ignored all this, and you're totally wrong." Which is fine, that's a great opinion to have! I can be completely wrong.
Thing is, that post was in this, and didn't account for the fact that I had already posted a whole third post that accounted for what he said.
Shortly thereafter, he made another post saying, "WIth respect, ..... (you're still totally wrong.)" I mean ... why do I even bother writing with sources. If I put effort into the OP (which I do), then they should speak for themselves. I don't have any strong need to defend it when I read what he wrote because it just wasn't interesting to me - it's already answered in the three posts I have written, so I don't think explaining it again is going to make a difference.
His disagreement and dislike of what I wrote is totally fine! I am sure he has a strong opinion on things that he wants to argue! I'm not very interested in arguing, however. If someone wants to discuss something, I'm more amenable. For example, I really enjoy discussing the history of the game, and I've been thinking about the particular changes that occurred re: the multiverse early on. But that's not an invitation to argue about things being "good" or "bad" or about editions or what happened with 4e or 5e or 3e; it's beyond the scope of what I was thinking about.
If people want to argue about things being good or bad or what should be, I am sure that there are many people that love arguing. Just not me.
dave2008
Legend
However, just because you think the questions are answered by your post doesn't mean they are or that it is clear to others. You responded to one of my questions with a quote from your post that I didn't feel answered the question, but you clearly did. That at least is a good place to start if you feel you have already answered the question. Ultimately I don't care, but if you want to improve on your thesis, the getting and respond to feedback should do help that goal.
Just a reminder I have enjoyed the post, but they just seemed ripe for discussion and thus debate,which some construe as arguing.
Mercurius
Legend
I think the problem that you're running into, @Snarf Zagyg , is that you're not only talking about the history of the game, you're also saying "Gygax had it right, and then they messed it up--and here is why it matters."
If you assert such a position, you're going to get some push-back.
If you assert such a position, you're going to get some push-back.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
This is true. I will have to live with the possibility that I, or someone on the internet, is wrong. Or both!
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
That’s the position you are ascribing to me, which is why I am not engaging.
Pushback is not a discussion.
Mercurius
Legend
Pushback doesn't have to be an attack--it is simply questioning or disagreement. I don't see anyone attacking you, but I do see almost everyone disagreeing with some of what you are saying, and in a generally civil manner. That is a form of discussion, which you seem unwilling to engage with. If so, why post at all? If you don't want people discussing your ideas--or if you don't want people critiquing or disagreeing--maybe this isn't the right place? We're an opinionated bunch.
Don't get me wrong: I like your posts and am glad you put the time into it. I think you have a valid perspective and I appreciate your love of the Gygaxian multiverse. I just don't agree with some of the conclusions you've come to, and I don't see a problem with posting to that effect.
dave2008
Legend
But your statements like:
"But in my opinion, that missed the original brilliance of the Prime Material. The Prime Material is, quite literally, everything you could ever imagine. "
and
" but the focus leads to a dearth of excellent published material because, in my opinion, they no longer use the design space that they have with the PMP. "
and
"The inner and outer planes are a forced expansion. They don't .... really .... add very much. "
and I am sure there is more.
So you do have opinions and biases, and that is OK. But it is a bit unfair to dismiss people who question those opinions and biases
Stormonu
Legend
I guess this whole discussion is going over my head. I don't see the multiple prime planes vs. having different "worlds" be in the outer planes as being superior in any way.
All I can say is that my encounters with alternate worlds in D&D were mostly in adventures, and there were a few I shied away from because the plane-hopping sequences didn't sound fun to DM (such as IM1, The Immortal Storm where you end up in a magic-less New York)
I always saw the Manual of the Planes as a great boon that opened up the concept of plane traveling because it was a book full of ideas and hints on how to frame these strange and distant worlds. Personally, I never saw it as detracting from world jumping but rather it encouraged plane-skipping as well as world jumping.
To me, it was Planescape that changed the nature of planar travel by trying to define the planes too much. With it, all your outer plane travelers had to talk in berk-speech and the planes contains these specific, mapped features (I'm thinking of the marvelous Planes of Law/Chaos/Conflict, Guide to Ethereal, Guide to Astral books/boxed sets). Even the Outlands were no longer an ever-changing place but fixed, with the torus Sigil thrust upon us whether it was wanted or not.
Still, in the end the designers were smart enough to treat Planescape as just one view of the outer planes. They still designed campaign worlds with different cosmologies (Birthright, Dark Sun, Eberron to name a few) and even decided to shake up the whole cosmology for 4E.
If anything, I would say resistance to using reality hopping, plane hopping or whatever is a DM/play group issue - if at all. Just like whether one decides to use Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk and have Mordenkainen pop over to have tea with Elminster.
All I can say is that my encounters with alternate worlds in D&D were mostly in adventures, and there were a few I shied away from because the plane-hopping sequences didn't sound fun to DM (such as IM1, The Immortal Storm where you end up in a magic-less New York)
I always saw the Manual of the Planes as a great boon that opened up the concept of plane traveling because it was a book full of ideas and hints on how to frame these strange and distant worlds. Personally, I never saw it as detracting from world jumping but rather it encouraged plane-skipping as well as world jumping.
To me, it was Planescape that changed the nature of planar travel by trying to define the planes too much. With it, all your outer plane travelers had to talk in berk-speech and the planes contains these specific, mapped features (I'm thinking of the marvelous Planes of Law/Chaos/Conflict, Guide to Ethereal, Guide to Astral books/boxed sets). Even the Outlands were no longer an ever-changing place but fixed, with the torus Sigil thrust upon us whether it was wanted or not.
Still, in the end the designers were smart enough to treat Planescape as just one view of the outer planes. They still designed campaign worlds with different cosmologies (Birthright, Dark Sun, Eberron to name a few) and even decided to shake up the whole cosmology for 4E.
If anything, I would say resistance to using reality hopping, plane hopping or whatever is a DM/play group issue - if at all. Just like whether one decides to use Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk and have Mordenkainen pop over to have tea with Elminster.
Urriak Uruk
Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
Definition of "discussion": the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas (thank you Oxford).
I suppose if you're not willing to hear any pushback to exchange ideas, it's not a discussion. But that seems like your choice for not engaging.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
On a very fundamental level, this is what I am talking about. You are taking individual quotes, and have ascribed to me
the idea that I am arguing for a position commiserate with biases on opinion, and therefore you have the deeply felt need to correct my opinions and biases.
Is it possible that is not what I'm doing, and as such, I have no real desire to engage with you on this, since I don't really feel the need to defend a position I do not have?
What is truly weird to me is that, as far as I know, I do not "own" a thread. And yet, I have now spent multiple posts trying to explain to people that they are welcome to disagree with me, but just because they demand that I argue with them, doesn't mean I have to.
It's kind of odd? I mean .... I assume I didn't miss the memo that said, "When someone really disagrees with you on the internet, and keeps saying that you have bad opinions that you don't even hold, you are required to argue with them until they are satisfied that they have word-bludgeoned you to submission."
And since I don't think that memo exists, I will exit this conversation! I'll post the fourth part on Monday or so; enjoy it, or not.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I've read all three of your threads so far, and they all contain biases and opinion from you. With very few exceptions, each time someone disagrees with you, you either don't respond at all or respond that you aren't going to talk about it.
What is the purpose of putting a biased and opinionated analysis on a forum and then working very hard to avoid any discussion about it that disagrees with you or anything you've written?
dave2008
Legend
I don't have any desire to correct your opinion. What I desire is for you to engage with your audience which cleary has a desire to engage with you. I'm just trying to help make your argument / thesis better through discussion. Sharpen your skills in battle so to speak. I don't personally care about one side of the argument or the other.
Is it really so weird for people to want to engage with an author - I don't think so. You don't have to, but it seems like a good way to test your thesis - but I get your working on 4 part series and it can become a chore to "defend" your ideas.What is truly weird to me is that, as far as I know, I do not "own" a thread. And yet, I have now spent multiple posts trying to explain to people that they are welcome to disagree with me, but just because they demand that I argue with them, doesn't mean I have to.
It's kind of odd? I mean .... I assume I didn't miss the memo that said, "When someone really disagrees with you on the internet, and keeps saying that you have bad opinions that you don't even hold, you are required to argue with them until they are satisfied that they have word-bludgeoned you to submission."
And since I don't think that memo exists, I will exit this conversation! I'll post the fourth part on Monday or so; enjoy it, or not.
ilgatto
How inconvenient
If I understand all of the above correctly, the Snarfster is suggesting that MotP has actually limited what one can do in the Prime Material Plane and that it led to post-MotP publications being “forced” to put weird things in other planes than the PMP, thus de facto depriving folks who wanna stick to “canon” and do “weird” things with their post-MotP Prime Material Plane at the same time of the possibility to do so.
Wanna have Ravenloft in 2E? It’s off the Demi-Plane of Dread with you. [rant]Ye Gods! I hate the concept of a “Demi-Plane of Dread” and especially when it has to be in the Ethereal Plane.[/rant]
Wanna have Alice in Wonderland? No more just open a dungeon door and BOOM! – h-e-e-e-e-e-re’s… Alice! for you. Nope, the post-MotP mechanics have forced you to cross planar boundaries.
Wanna have some six-shooters in your game? Impossible unless some gunslinger has found a portal to the Prime Material Plane… which he cannot for everybody knows there’s no such things as portals to fantasy worlds in Westerns.
Wanna find Amun-Re’s tomb in the Desert of Desolation? Sorry, pal, you’ll have to find yer ways to the Forgotten Realms first. Um…, wait…, um…, okay, forget I said that.
And that (apart from such notions as that there’s many ways around that and that messrs EGG and EG and everybody else of some name who ever did anything for D&D have always hammered on the fact that everybody is free to do whatever they like in their own games) the fact that MotP “canonizes” the concept of the PMP and other planes, and the fact that D&D/TSR publications typically “have to” stick to the canon, has therefore more or less prevented folks who wanted to publish something that does weird things in the PMP.
And these, I think, are valid points.
In my main (2E) world, “reality” is created by the human perception of it, limited only by their – and therefore the players’ – preconceptions of it. Yup, that’s a circle, which makes it all the more interesting. IMHO and all that.
To put it very simply, this allows me, as the DM, to confront my PCs/players with phenomena and propositions as strange as they are subtle, with notions and ideas that seem quite logical and “real” when put forth, which then makes them decide things and go places, which become part of their thinking process, their view of how things seem to be (and therefore “reality”) until someone eventually goes: “Er… hold on…, that’s not really possible/the case/what he said/what actually happened/(and so on, and so on), is it?”
There are many ways in which one can do this, as long as they don’t take away player agency, for that would defeat the purpose. So there’s playing on feelings of suspense; following up and/or seemingly lending credence to a player’s misunderstanding of the plot of an adventure (of which there’s a lot as any DM will know); using paramours and other loved ones; the odd joke; emphasizing aspects of scenes and sites; simultaneous effects; playing out conversations with NPCs in real time (I’m lucky in that, for most of my players are actors, role-players, or a combination of both); knowing what makes your players tick and designing adventures around themes that will interest them; suggesting that the gods and their servants play an active part in the fortunes and woes of the heroes and heroines of the word, which the PCs obviously are.
All of this means that I de facto give events and people aspects and qualities that would not fit with what I suppose would be considered acceptable in the PMP as it is described in MotP. For how can I explain that lightning struck at the exact same time a dour innkeeper with the stats of a commoner spake the final worlds of his horror story close to the roaring fire in his lonely inn on the moors? How can I explain that a paramour gave a ‛dream-like’ quality to a romantic encounter when he/she cannot cast spells or use psionics? How can I explain that the princeling the evil PC just murdered in cold blood is seen alive and well behind that first-floor window when the party leave the mansion? How can I explain that you thought that the robed man standing behind the patrol sergeant was reading your mind? How can I explain that Issym of the Lake suffused the room with a tangible aura, a miasma, when my own concept of her beauty got the better of me because I and everybody else at the table had had a couple of Gueuzes?
Well, I suppose MotP sort of says I can’t really do so in the PMP, while the Gygaxian PMP would say…, well, nothing really. Except, perhaps, if pressed: “Um… good work?”
Now, can I publish this world post MotP? Apart from the fact that I really couldn’t because the above is obviously the result of ad lib player-DM interaction in specific situations, I probably can. Would this world be in line with the post-MotP “canon” for 2E? Perhaps not so much.
Would I want to do so post MotP? Without hesitation, no.
For, despite what their authors may say, rule books do have the unfortunate habit of determining what DMs of the game think they can do and what they cannot, what players will accept and what they won’t.
I suppose it could be argued that MotP was a logical consequence of what was happening with the game at the time, a necessity even. It explained things, established “much needed” rules, brought things “back to earth”, “grounded” them, and it allowed creative folks to publish “weird” things within a comprehensive TSR frame.
In that, it provided DMs, designers, and players with many, many, possibilities of adventure – while limiting things at the same time.
EDIT: point>points
Wanna have Ravenloft in 2E? It’s off the Demi-Plane of Dread with you. [rant]Ye Gods! I hate the concept of a “Demi-Plane of Dread” and especially when it has to be in the Ethereal Plane.[/rant]
Wanna have Alice in Wonderland? No more just open a dungeon door and BOOM! – h-e-e-e-e-e-re’s… Alice! for you. Nope, the post-MotP mechanics have forced you to cross planar boundaries.
Wanna have some six-shooters in your game? Impossible unless some gunslinger has found a portal to the Prime Material Plane… which he cannot for everybody knows there’s no such things as portals to fantasy worlds in Westerns.
Wanna find Amun-Re’s tomb in the Desert of Desolation? Sorry, pal, you’ll have to find yer ways to the Forgotten Realms first. Um…, wait…, um…, okay, forget I said that.
And that (apart from such notions as that there’s many ways around that and that messrs EGG and EG and everybody else of some name who ever did anything for D&D have always hammered on the fact that everybody is free to do whatever they like in their own games) the fact that MotP “canonizes” the concept of the PMP and other planes, and the fact that D&D/TSR publications typically “have to” stick to the canon, has therefore more or less prevented folks who wanted to publish something that does weird things in the PMP.
And these, I think, are valid points.
In my main (2E) world, “reality” is created by the human perception of it, limited only by their – and therefore the players’ – preconceptions of it. Yup, that’s a circle, which makes it all the more interesting. IMHO and all that.
To put it very simply, this allows me, as the DM, to confront my PCs/players with phenomena and propositions as strange as they are subtle, with notions and ideas that seem quite logical and “real” when put forth, which then makes them decide things and go places, which become part of their thinking process, their view of how things seem to be (and therefore “reality”) until someone eventually goes: “Er… hold on…, that’s not really possible/the case/what he said/what actually happened/(and so on, and so on), is it?”
There are many ways in which one can do this, as long as they don’t take away player agency, for that would defeat the purpose. So there’s playing on feelings of suspense; following up and/or seemingly lending credence to a player’s misunderstanding of the plot of an adventure (of which there’s a lot as any DM will know); using paramours and other loved ones; the odd joke; emphasizing aspects of scenes and sites; simultaneous effects; playing out conversations with NPCs in real time (I’m lucky in that, for most of my players are actors, role-players, or a combination of both); knowing what makes your players tick and designing adventures around themes that will interest them; suggesting that the gods and their servants play an active part in the fortunes and woes of the heroes and heroines of the word, which the PCs obviously are.
All of this means that I de facto give events and people aspects and qualities that would not fit with what I suppose would be considered acceptable in the PMP as it is described in MotP. For how can I explain that lightning struck at the exact same time a dour innkeeper with the stats of a commoner spake the final worlds of his horror story close to the roaring fire in his lonely inn on the moors? How can I explain that a paramour gave a ‛dream-like’ quality to a romantic encounter when he/she cannot cast spells or use psionics? How can I explain that the princeling the evil PC just murdered in cold blood is seen alive and well behind that first-floor window when the party leave the mansion? How can I explain that you thought that the robed man standing behind the patrol sergeant was reading your mind? How can I explain that Issym of the Lake suffused the room with a tangible aura, a miasma, when my own concept of her beauty got the better of me because I and everybody else at the table had had a couple of Gueuzes?
Well, I suppose MotP sort of says I can’t really do so in the PMP, while the Gygaxian PMP would say…, well, nothing really. Except, perhaps, if pressed: “Um… good work?”
Now, can I publish this world post MotP? Apart from the fact that I really couldn’t because the above is obviously the result of ad lib player-DM interaction in specific situations, I probably can. Would this world be in line with the post-MotP “canon” for 2E? Perhaps not so much.
Would I want to do so post MotP? Without hesitation, no.
For, despite what their authors may say, rule books do have the unfortunate habit of determining what DMs of the game think they can do and what they cannot, what players will accept and what they won’t.
I suppose it could be argued that MotP was a logical consequence of what was happening with the game at the time, a necessity even. It explained things, established “much needed” rules, brought things “back to earth”, “grounded” them, and it allowed creative folks to publish “weird” things within a comprehensive TSR frame.
In that, it provided DMs, designers, and players with many, many, possibilities of adventure – while limiting things at the same time.
EDIT: point>points
Last edited:
Similar Threads
