"Planar Handbook" - completlely useless?

I'm the opposite kind of player. I love Planescape. I also like Dark Sun and love Call of Cthulhu, but Planescape is far-and-away my favorite campaign setting ever. I liked the art, I liked the writing, I liked most of the attitude. It really complements the way I DM, so it's still a good match for me.

That being said, I'm not sure how much mileage I'll get out of the Planar Handbook. I've gotten some use from it already, and I'm sure I'll get more, but it won't be the most valuable book I'll buy this year by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike MoogleEmpMog, I consider crunch mostly ephemeral and a waste for me - I'll never need most of it, and it doesn't inspire me - and it's the planar locations and NPCs I really enjoy.

Just two different styles of play, but it's interesting to see such a dichotomy.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Piratecat said:
Just two different styles of play, but it's interesting to see such a dichotomy.

Yes, it is really fascinating.

I (generally) respond to game mechanics more than descriptive text. I mean, I like descriptive text, and I find it useful for provoking ideas, but there is a stage where it restricts me too much.

A lot of the time I approach 3E D&D like this: I have a concept, what mechanics are there to allow me to model it?

Conversely, I can see a mechanic and go "That's interesting - I've thought of a concept based on that!"

The Planar Touchstones I find fascinating. In truth, they are an extension of the concept of the feat. You take a feat that gives you an ability... but if you visit this location, you can get a higher order ability.

That's a basic idea, but it allows me to expand it in the way I desire. I'm not limited by huge womps of descriptive text explaining how this touchstone is controlled by these factions and they have the following plans, and in the future a module will come out that turns everything upside-down and ruins whatever development I had of that location...

Cheers!
 

In addition, it can't be emphasised enough that the Planar Handbook is designed for Players more than DMs.

A couple of my players, after reading the book (and the planar touchstones), have indicated that they want to attune to a particular touchstone.

Thus, the desires of the players will fuel a future adventure, rather than me imposing one on them. It also gives me leave to develop the game in a direction I probably wouldn't have gone in before.

That's one reason I prefer that the book contains the many descriptions of the touchstones. If they weren't there, I'd have to create them myself, and I have other things that I'm doing.

Cheers!
 

Unlike MoogleEpMog, I like the idea of planar travel, and being able to go to other worlds. Like MoogleEpMog, I hate Planescape. The more I hear or see of it, the more I hate it. I'm glad to see on this thread that some people are finally noticing that dungeonpunk started there, instead of making it spikes and buckles more thing to slam 3.x over.
 

Nisarg said:
What was bad was the Planescape atmosphere, the punk attitude, the cant, the bad drawings, the modrons, the effort to make the planes into just another mundane adventuring zone, or just a silly place in general. Bad art, bad fiction, bad attitude, clockworks and leather all over the place.

Fiction? Are you talking about the rules or the novels? I've never read a novel based on a D&D world and I never intend to. Even if I did, it would remain a separate entity from the game products.
Like so many other people, anything that happened outside of your lifetime appears to also be outside your frame of reference. Spikes, tattoos, weird hairstyles and makeup all existed before the punk craze. Ask some Celts, or some Vikings, or some Maori, or some headhunters, or the Egyptians...
You apparently can't divorce your frame of reference, ie. the punk movement and nineties fashion from the historical reality. Now I'm not suggesting that Planescape is based on reality in any way, shape or form; but people had the same spikes and tattoos comments when 3E came out and it usually seems the result of a lack of imagination/historical perspective. Just because you are familiar with punk doesn't mean that's what PS was meant to emulate. Someone else might see similarities with the tattoo craze among sailors, soldiers and sideshow folk around the turn of the century... Go fig. I suppose you'd have preferred the same vanilla armor for fighters and paladins, leather or pajamas for thieves and bards, and robes for wizards and priests? No thank you.
The art was not bad. Maybe not to your taste, but not bad. Let's face it, arguments about art go nowhere because it's subjective.
However, I've seen bad art, and I've seen art that I didn't like, but at the same time I knew wasn't "bad" per se. TD's art is very good, but not everyone likes it. 'nuff said.

The pictures involving clockwork almost invariably had to do with mechanus, a plain made out of gears. Or is the plane of absolute law supposed to be made of gummy bears? :)
I'm not a big fan of modrons, but they predate Planescape and I have to say, they were better off after Planescape than they were before it.

The people who worked on Planescape NEVER made an "effort" to turn the planes into "just another mundane adventuring zone". If that is what it did for you, so be it. It obviously takes a better developed imagination to see that there can be more on the planes than just gods, angels and demons without the place turning into just another dungeon crawl.

And for Planescape fans to feel unsatisfied with the current Planar books and demand the return of Planescape books is essentially for Planescape fanboys to be demanding exclusivity, because there's no way WoTC could have two Planes-based lines running at once.

A one-shot campaign book hardly equals exclusivity. But you used the term fanboy so you must right. Superior and absolutely right.

The current line gives some, probably a lot of material that a Planescape fan can use.. yea, it doesn't give them a fix of angst or words like Derk or Grok or whatever being thrown around every two minutes, or bad in-game literature, but it does give them some useful material, and it allows the rest of us to play in a "derk-free" zone.
I think you mean berk. You take away from books what you personally perceive. Obviously you saw angst, and spikes and not much else; I didn't. You could just opt to say that Planescape just didn't spark your imagination like other materials did; instead you prefer to imply that it's stupid and so are the people who like it. Once again though, you used the word fanboy in your post to illigitimize the Planescape-friendly viewpoint, so I must defer to your superiority.

Out of everything that Wizards has produced lately, the Planes material is what I'm most satisfied with. They've been doing an excellent job.

Ah well, if you're satisfied with it, that must mean it's a better product. That is your point, right?
 

MoogleEmpMog said:
the planes are out there, you can't get to them, and their inhabitants *will* kill you if you try.
When those planar entities in DS or IK come to wipe you out for daring to threaten their abode, they'll do it in ways the rules express and both players and DM can understand, even as your PCs die in writhing eldritch agony. Even CoC uses its own ruthless rules to slaughter those who tread the ground of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. And every once in a while, you might just, by a unique combination of skill, luck and the hard-souled half-mad human will to live, get out alive. The Lady of Pain just feels like the ultimate untouchable DMPC/favorite NPC.
That looks like a contradiction. If the inhabitants of the planes are so powerful and bent on killing the PCs, then why should it matter that the Lady of Pain can smack them down without specific rules to govern how she does it? Frankly, I never saw why players concerned themselves with the Lady. Do they really think they're important enough for her to bother with?
I can understand someone complaining that she's just a jury-rigged "patch" to explain how a place like Sigil could exist, free from the Gods' meddling. I can understand that point of view; but complaining that she's there to kill the players if they get out of hand is short-sighted and wrong-headed.
For one, it's the DM that decides how to use her. If the DM uses the Lady to kill the players or block them at every turn when they don't do what he/she wants, that's a problem with the DM, not the setting.
The only players I can think of that would read about the Lady and automatically feel threatened by her, are the powergaming twinks that like to have their character wreak as much havok as possible and have the ego to think that their puny PC will even get noticed by the Gods. People like that see ANY sign that something might be powerful enough to have a better than 50/50 shot at stopping them as a threat to their PC's ability to kill stuff and take loot.
There are entire factions full of capable people in Sigil routinely doing stuff that the Lady doesn't like, the players must really think they're hot stuff if they think they'll catch more than a passing glance of the Lady of Pain.
Where are all of these games where the PCs "get up in the Gods' Kool-aid? Sheesh.
And two, the Lady's power doesn't extend past Sigil. So your players can do whatever the heck they want on the other planes and she can't touch them (like she'd bother anyway).

Lastly, because the entire Planescape line seemed pretentious, overly obtuse and pseudo-intellectual. That came out in the art, it came out in the writing, it came out in the rules themselves.
You apparently got something from the books that I did not.

Thotas said:
I'm glad to see on this thread that some people are finally noticing that dungeonpunk started there,
And not Dark Sun?
 

Just an OT query related to Nisarg's rants re "Gen-X" - I tought this refers to the generation that's the children of the baby boomer (ca 1945-1965) generation, who came of age pre the Millenium, so born roughly between the late '60s through to around 1982; with the post-1982, grew up with the Internet generation being "gen Y". I think he classic Gen-X TV show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, written by a guy my age (I was born '72) with protagonists at the tail end of the same generation, and a big focus on conflict with the mores of the baby-boomer parent generation.
So I always say the 1990s grunge/punk thing & WoTC's dungeonpunk style as more Gen-Y than Gen-X, sure Kurt Cobain was technically Gen-X, but so the original punks were baby-boomers... is that right?
 

S'mon said:
Just an OT query related to Nisarg's rants re "Gen-X" - I tought this refers to the generation that's the children of the baby boomer (ca 1945-1965) generation, who came of age pre the Millenium, so born roughly between the late '60s through to around 1982; with the post-1982, grew up with the Internet generation being "gen Y". I think he classic Gen-X TV show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, written by a guy my age (I was born '72) with protagonists at the tail end of the same generation, and a big focus on conflict with the mores of the baby-boomer parent generation.
So I always say the 1990s grunge/punk thing & WoTC's dungeonpunk style as more Gen-Y than Gen-X, sure Kurt Cobain was technically Gen-X, but so the original punks were baby-boomers... is that right?

They're buzz-words the press likes to throw around, do you really think they took the time to define it?

People didn't start talking about generation X until I was half way through highschool. At the time the people whom they were referring to as Gen-X were my age. Most of the children of the baby boomers, people who were teens in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, didn't really ever get a nickname. Maybe they got lumped in with the punks, yuppies, etc from the "Me Generation".
When I first started hearing about "Generation Y", it was in reference to people who were "tweens" a year or two ago. Tween itself being a term I only recently started hearing (which refers to kids who aren't quite teenagers).
Sort of pathetic that they couldn't come up with anything better to follow Gen-X with so they puked up Gen-Y in order to have a new buzz word to toss around.
At least, that's the way I see it.

Edit: For reference, I'm 27. I started hearing about Gen-X in the 90s. I started hearing about Gen-Y a year or two ago.
 
Last edited:

Well I've seen definitions of Gen-X as "children of the baby boomers" and "adult pre-2000" so that topped & tailed it, plus Gen-Y as "the one after X". :)

Personally I feel like I'm a child of the '80s, that was my formative years & thus I have relatively little in common with those who grew up in the very different, post-Cold-War 1990s.

edit: I'm sure I've seen "Gen-Y" references starting around the end of the '90s.

edit: I saw "Hot Shots" (1991) a few days ago, and kept thinking "Wow, that Kristy Swanson is hot!" :) I just don't get that from modern 21C movie stars *sigh* :(
 
Last edited:

Bran Blackbyrd said:
Fiction? Are you talking about the rules or the novels? I've never read a novel based on a D&D world and I never intend to. Even if I did, it would remain a separate entity from the game products.
Like so many other people, anything that happened outside of your lifetime appears to also be outside your frame of reference. Spikes, tattoos, weird hairstyles and makeup all existed before the punk craze. Ask some Celts, or some Vikings, or some Maori, or some headhunters, or the Egyptians...
You apparently can't divorce your frame of reference, ie. the punk movement and nineties fashion from the historical reality. Now I'm not suggesting that Planescape is based on reality in any way, shape or form; but people had the same spikes and tattoos comments when 3E came out and it usually seems the result of a lack of imagination/historical perspective. Just because you are familiar with punk doesn't mean that's what PS was meant to emulate. Someone else might see similarities with the tattoo craze among sailors, soldiers and sideshow folk around the turn of the century...?

This is a fairly absurd assertion you're making. The reason I accuse Planescape of being connected to the punk/grunge stylings of the nineties and not to vikings or celts is because Planescape was not written by vikings or celts; it was, however, written in the 90s.
What you're asserting would be like someone claiming that the fighting in Hong Kong martial arts films doesn't nescessarily have anything to do with Kung-fu, that it might just be a coincidence that its produced in the same place Kung fu is produced, it could just as easily have to do with Roman wrestling; or that the Bee Gees music wasn't nescessarily disco, it could actually have been opera that was only "labelled" as disco because that was people's frame of reference. Or, for that matter to argue that Rudyard Kipling's literature was in no way influenced or inspired by the British Empire in which he lived.

Let's call a spade a spade here: PS was designed to reflect what its authors thought their public thought was "cool" in that time period. They weren't influenced by the celts or vikings; they were influenced by punk, certain british literary figures, and the heights of mid-90s fashions. You aren't fooling anyone by trying to claim that the writers/designers of PS were working in a vacuum.

But please, by all means, go back to your time machine and turn back the clock ten years to hide from all change.. of course, to do that, you could just stick to the Planescape stuff that was printed back then, and let the rest of us actually enjoy living in the present, where we get to have a choice about how we want to play the Planes.

Again, I repeat for those who are having trouble getting this concept: I have yet to see, anywhere, news reports of Wizards staff hunting down and shooting people who play the planes in the Planescape style. THERE IS NOTHIGN STOPPING YOU. Go wild. Just don't try to force-feed it down the rest of our throats by trapping the books in the Planescape mold.

That's what's awesome about the new books: they designed in a very general, broad setting sense. You want to run them with a Planescape feel? you can. You want to run them as inhospitably epic? You can. You want to run them as heroically adventurous? You can. You want to run them as dark and sinister? You can. Totally alien? Yes. Emphasis on combat? Yes. Culturally diverse and fascinating? Yes. Wierd for wierd's sake? Yes. Manual of the Planes is possibly the BEST "setting-type" book for 3.x because it is a toolkit, it doesn't try to TELL YOU what the atmosphere of the planes "must" be like. Which is what planescape always did.

Nisarg
 

Remove ads

Top