Pathfinder 1E Paizo - Scourge of Old Worlds?

[Psion]

Keep in mind that what this REALLY means is "It would be nice if they did it the way I think is best."

Let's pretend that I know what I really mean and that ain't it.

Sure, there is that vocal internet geek mindset. But I'm not the sort of person who (for example) refuses to go see the Lord of the Rings movies because they won't live up to my vision of Tolkein. Or to tear down RttToEE because it dared to move on from Greyhawk per Gygax.

So I do think that it is possible to have some reasonable expectations of faithfulness to the vision of a setting without becoming a frothing fanboy over the minor or necessary adaptations. Just like it is possible when retelling a setting to in actuality deviate from the spirit of the setting -- something I think neither the LotR movies nor RttToEE does. (Die Vecna, Die!, OTOH...)

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that all fans of a setting are the overly vocal ones with unreasonable expectations.

Winky was noted, but I just want to be clear and hopefully take my stand against cynicism.

 

[Ozmar]

That said, my trouble with the Great Wheel cosmology (and by proxy, the Planescape cosmology) is that it doesn't provide DMs with solutions to the problems it creates, problems I alluded to in my editorial. What happens when you fly up in the Beastlands? Infinite air. A creative and experienced DM can solve some of these problems, but the game should equip players with ways to solve problems it creates, or it should eliminate the problems (the strategy I favor). Not every DM who thinks sending the PCs to the outer planes would be cool is a DM with tons of products and years of experience, and not every experienced DM wants to deal with finding solutions to the problems.

Hi Matt,

I'd like to address your perceived trouble with the Great Wheel cosmology. What you see as a problem, I see as an asset. I always viewed the ambiguity of infinity (and the apparant contradictions and unknowns inherent in the setting) to be part of the charm. When running Planescape, I made a point of avoiding any concrete answers to these questions. Part of the fun of playing in Planescape was the inescapable wonder that arises from the unknown. The players would ask me what happens if they jump off of Sigil, and I'd just ask them if they want to jump and find out? I'd offer theories through NPCs: every character would have a belief, and often they would contradict each other. And who could say which was right? Perhaps the power of belief made one reality true for one person, and another reality true for another? So if someone truly believed that they could jump off of Sigil and gate to another plane, then they could? And maybe someone else would simply disappear and never be seen again.

I guess I fall into the category of experienced and creative DM, because I always looked forward to players trying to explore the unknown, and appreciated that the setting didn't try to answer all the impossible questions. I do see your point about products reducing guesswork for the DM, but for me, I prefer to enjoy the mystery inherent in the wondrously impossible setting of the Great Wheel.

Ozmar the Planescape DM

 

[Shemeska]

Trust me, I'm a Yugoloth...

I figured I should finally comment on this topic...

The sudden and inexplicable retroactive changes to the 3e FR cosmology blow. It's a seminal discussion over on the WotC FR boards on just how and how much they do indeed blow. The logical inconsistancies they bring up appear to have been things not even taken into consideration. While I can certainly agree with SKR's want to fix what he saw as a problem with FR being part of the Great Wheel, I can't in any way agree with it.

I originally posted this over on WotC, and I'll post it here as well:

"Of course 3e FR has in theory negated all of these [past persons, places and] things from existance... It's like getting all your toys from every past Xmas taken by your mean old uncle, put in a box and torched in front of your very eyes and then being given his present to you for that year. A present that he says makes everything he just sent up in flames meaningless because of the glory of his new Xmas present for you. You jiggle the box, you try to guess what's in there, and then you open it to find a pen and pencil set and some clothes that aren't your color or style."

Not to imply that SKR is my mean old uncle.

I'm biased in this of course since I'm one of the folks working on the Planewalker 3e conversion to Planescape. Heck, you can't even call me a cranky old timer with too much nostalgia since I never started playing DnD till 3e had been on the shelves for a month already. Then I discovered 2e Planescape and stood there with my mouth open and asking myself why the 3e material utterly lacked a soul and the level of creativity and novelty that I saw in the older PS material. The best 3e books have been those that piggybacked off of, or used nearly word for word the planar material from Planescape.

Sure the Great Wheel cosmology has its own issues and unexplained things that generally can be glossed over. But the detail it recieved in Planescape simply has not been replicated in the least fraction by the newer material, 3e FR especially. As it is 3e FR has thankfully been creeping back towards reintegration with the Great Wheel cosmology (thank you Rich Baker, you have earned cutter status) Namely by a portal to Sigil in FR, and the Infinite Staircase. Both of those being the same one for FR and the Great Wheel. One degree of seperation. Pray to whatever powers that be that any 4e returns wholly to a common multiverse (with the exception of worlds designed from the start intentionally to have their own cosmology, such as Ebberon. Though there's a lively thread on the Planewalker forums about how to potentially integrate that world with a Planescape campaign).

And btw, the changes at the end of Die Vecna Die don't correspond to the cosmology changes in 3e core. 3e made the Astral overlap the former role of the Ethereal, made the Ethereal essentially meaningless, removed the para and quasielemental planes, removed dreamscapes as part of the near ethereal/deep ethereal border, etc. Die Vecna Die describes Outer Planes drifting off and vanishing, some colliding and merging, and an Inner Plane 'running aground' on the Prime material. Doesn't really describe the 3e changes, even if that was the original intent.

 

[Shemeska]

Can folks give me some ideas of Planescape campaigns and adventures they have run? First, that'll help me come up with ideas for my own plane travel games. And second, I'm curious what types of games WotC actually is screwing with, such that the changes have messed up your history.

First you might want to check out my story hour in my .sig. It's not too terribly into the plot yet (since I started writing it nearly two years into the campaign), but it might give you some ideas.

Also you might want to check out the 1001 Planar Adventure Ideas Thread that we started over on the WotC Planescape forum. There's some amusing ones there, from the lighthearted to the honestly thought provoking. You might also take a look at some of the stuff on the Planewalker forums, or some of the ideas on the Realms of Evil.net Planescape forums.

And as always there's the Mimir the classic PS fan site. I've found many of the random ideas there to be worthy of campaign stuff. There's some seriously talented people that have made stuff for the setting, I only wish I'd found it before the product line was folded back into the core.

 

[Psion]

Can folks give me some ideas of Planescape campaigns and adventures they have run?

I wonder if Eric Noah still has his Planescape campaign up somewhere. It was pretty cool. Before there was an Eric's 3e news site, I used to follow his site for what amounted to a "Planescape story hour."

 

[barsoomcore]

It is possible to have some reasonable expectations of faithfulness to the vision of a setting without becoming a frothing fanboy over the minor or necessary adaptations.

Well, I wasn't accusing you of being a frothing fanboy. The reality is, however, that you have an expectation of what's important and critical to any particular setting. Your ideas are unlikely to align with precision with the ideas of the people updating the setting. What seems obvious and necessary to you may not seem that way to others.

Using language like, "Do it right," is just attaching a moral superiority to your own opinion. By "do it right," you do indeed mean "do it my way" -- and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's what it means -- unless you've got some objective standard of rightness that everyone must be compelled to agree with in your back pocket.

Which I suspect you don't.

I mean, look at the line I've quoted. Look at the language it uses: "reasonable expectations", "minor", "necessary" -- those are all subjective terms that you've defined for yourself -- but how would anyone else know what you consider reasonable, minor or necessary? What makes your definition of "reasonable" the right one?

Winky was noted, but I just want to be clear and hopefully take my stand against cynicism.

I'm not trying to be cynical (then again, does anyone?) -- I'm trying to make clear that your claim to "rightness" has no basis.

What MIGHT have basis is the suggestion that your ideas on what's important in Planescape or whatever setting are GOOD ideas that will lead to fun, playable gamey goodness. But that can only be determined if we look at the ideas themselves -- not if we accept the use of terms like "reasonable" -- which could mean just about anything to anyone.

 

[3catcircus]

Sean K Reynolds clearly has demonstrated why the change to FR Cosmology was justified and warranted.

Actually - I would argue that the only thing he demonstrated was his ability to try and defend his case - at least to me, his arguments only attempt to justify his purposely undoing what already exists. Actually, I'm not singling him out since I got the same un-warm, un-fuzzy feeling regarding the "excuses" for why many of the 3.0 -> 3.5 changes were made.

Change for change's sake alone is no excuse.

 

[3catcircus]

Keep in mind that what this REALLY means is "It would be nice if they did it the way I think is best." It sounds a lot less likely that way, doesn't it? I think a proper formulation (that is, the formulation I think is best) helps to set expectations properly.

Well - I, for one, don't care what the 1st/2nd -> 3.x conversions are mechanically (yeah, yeah, my arguments a few weeks ago regarding mechanics notwithstanding...), so long as the flavor still exists - that is the reason why I like both the d20 Arabian Adventures incarnation of the Sha'ir as well as the recent Dragon (315?) incarnation of the Sha'ir. It is also why I *don't* like the genericization (is that even a word?) of stuff in FR books during their conversion from 3.0 to 3.5.

I think that all any of us is asking for is a direct port of pre-existing classes and races to a 3.x incarnation for the old OOP campaign settings. So, for example - I would expect, for example, a Maztica conversion *only* to cover the regionalization of the various peoples (non-humans as well as humans (Dog People, Azuposi, Nexalan, Payit, etc.)), the Eagle and Jaguar Knights and the Pluma and Hishna spellcasters, the Maztican deities (or aspects of Faerunian deities), and the types of spells and equipment found in the area.

I don't need a reinvention of the entire campaign setting (that's why I bought the boxed set, and why you can also download it for free.) I *do* need a mechanic for the above named stuff (for example, perhaps make the Pluma and Hishna spellcasters Prestige classes based on the rogue.) A nice new map would be nice but not essential.

Actually - since we are on the subject - I still find the FR Interactive Atlas and the FR Atlas (the book) to be the best overall maps around. I know that if WoTC or someone else were to spend the time and effort to compile a new atlas (in any form), I'd buy it. I'd prefer the atlas be electronic - I've got CC2 and it makes it easy to zoom, hide, whatever.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think that all any of us is asking for is a direct port of pre-existing classes and races to a 3.x incarnation for the old OOP campaign settings.

Be careful of terms like "direct port" -- that's a pretty ambiguous notion and what looks direct to one person may not look so to another. Someone could argue that including sorcerers in Dark Sun was indeed a "direct port". You might think they're wrong, but we're back to "It would be nice if they did it my way," again.

And keep in mind that "artistic" issues aren't the only (or indeed the most important) issues around product design. Somebody has to buy these products if anyone's going to bother making and publishing them. If a direct port appeals only to people who already own the 2E material (not saying it does, but IF it does), then is it even worth it to do the conversion? Maybe Dark Sun was a crappy seller first time around and the honchos said, "Let's include paladins and see how she runs."

I'm not saying that any of these examples are true, just offering a principle by which people are probably making decisions that may make what you want unviable. Pointing out that it's not a priori true that a conversion that conforms to your ideas is the better one.

 

[dead]

I don't know. Why don't you ask your DM?

A lot of the questions like this seem really silly to me; who cares what the "fluff" says if you still have the old stuff? To play in 3e, all you need are the 3e rules. The flavor text, the scope of adventures, the descriptions of characters, etc. is all extremely malleable and the easiest thing to change imaginable.

Quite honestly, to complain about any one of the things in the post above seems like a monumental waste of time.

This was a light-hearted joke. I really have no problems with 3E.

The new-look halflings are an improvement and make sense.

The separation of cosmologies is an improvement and makes sense.

Just to be technical, though, the original poster's complaints aren't against 3E; they're against campaign-setting continuity.