"Planar Handbook" - completlely useless?

[Mystery Man]

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

I think it's pretty clear that that is the case, please reread the first sentence of the first post. I knew and understood this going into this thread.
My frustration is with WoTC creating their products so player centric.

Day after I posted this thread I picked up Dungeon 114. It's a start.

 

[philreed]

Thanks Phil, taking a look.

I hope you like what you find. I'm especially proud of the rumors PDFs (I just love the idea of feeding the players inaccurate info due to a failed Gather Information check . . . just because they failed their roll doesn't mean they didn't hear something).

 

[MerricB]

I think it's pretty clear that that is the case, please reread the first sentence of the first post. I knew and understood this going into this thread.

Then why have you titled this thread after the Planar Handbook?

Quite frankly, if you wanted to discuss the lack of DM supplements for D&D, it would have seemed far better to title the thread "Are there too few DM products from Wizards?" or something similar.

Instead, you chose a title that demands a response from anyone who liked the Planar Handbook, regardless of what you consider the thread to be about.

Because of that decision on your part, quite a bit of this thread is on the merits of the Planar Handbook... and that is what I am responding to.

 

[Desdichado]

I dunno, MerricB. Responding in a thread based solely on the title and not even reading the posts? Definately sounds a bit dodgy.

 

[Mystery Man]

Instead, you chose a title that demands a response from anyone who liked the Planar Handbook, regardless of what you consider the thread to be about.

Because of that decision on your part, quite a bit of this thread is on the merits of the Planar Handbook... and that is what I am responding to.

That's fine if you want to respond to that, if you want to defend the PlHB that is your perogative. I was reiterating my point and holding the Planar Handbook up as an example of same. Which is lack of DM supplements.

Quite frankly, if you wanted to discuss the lack of DM supplements for D&D, it would have seemed far better to title the thread "Are there too few DM products from Wizards?" or something similar.

The PlHB was the straw the broke the camels back for me personally. Hence the title of the thread and then the body.

 

[WizarDru]

I guess they were both born in a period of relative optimism & economic expansion, before the oil shocks of the '70s?

But it's a lot more complicated than that. Someone born in 1946 would have been attending school for several years before Brown I and Brown II were even argued in court. Someone born in 1964 would have taken it as an established fact. The 1946 kid would be able to tell you where he was when President Kennedy was shot...the 1964 one didn't exist, yet. One grew up prior to the 'sexual revolution', while the other grew up with 'the pill' . Musically, the 1946 boomer would have had his/her socks blown off by the Beatles, while the 1964 boomer wouldn't even know who the Beatles were until after they broke up. A lot happened across that spectrum. The '46 boomer might have been a hippie...the 64 boomer might have been a disco king. And so on.

Which was my second answer if anyone asked me

Oh, I dig. I was just getting your back, there.

 

[Nisarg]

When did I make such a claim. You love to make up facts, don't you?

You made such a claim when you stated in the first place that I couldn't possibly know if PS's designers were influenced in the spikes and leather and lingo and attitude by the culture of the 90s. It appears you're the one who is now changing opinions? So you DO now AGREE WITH ME that PS was very clearly influenced by 90s pop culture?

You prefer what is essentially the planes, PRE-Planescape and I'm the one resisting change? Heh.
And when did I even suggest that that choice be taken away? Quote it. Oops, I never said anything of the sort. This strawman you've created is just wasting space?

I never said I like pre-planescape planes. I like the POST-Planescape Planes, ie. the Planes as they are now. That would indeed make YOU the one who is resisting change.

And no, the pre-PS planes and the post-PS planes are not the same place. The 3rd ed. Manual of the Planes took a lot of the good and interesting stuff from Planescape (while leaving the 90s pop culture-junk behind) and added some new elements of its own, not to mention that it was the best all-around toolkit book.

The only "strawman" here is the little shot you just tried to make implying that MoTP is somehow a step back to 1e.

It is not a "strawman" for me to argue that if Wizards had to make a Planescape book, they would essentially have to grind their regular Planes material to a halt. It is entirely unrealistic to assume that Wizards could handle two planes-related product lines at a time, or that they would want to license PS out so as to directly compete with their own line (that, I suspect, is the REAL reason behind their very very high licensing price), or that they would just do a one-shot book that would end up causing intense confusion by presenting a remarkably similar but at the same time very different set of planes that would subsequently not be considered "canon".

So the only real options are:
1. Keep going with the Planes as they are now, where the goal is to keep the atmosphere as open as possible so that each gamers has the CHOICE of what "attitude", if any, the planes have.
2. Dump the current style and go back full bore to Planescape, essentially forcing those of us who don't like the punk-berk-poseuring to drop the line.

Do you see the difference between the two options? It is FAR FAR easier for those of you who like PS to add the PS attitude to the current products than it would be for those of us who disliked PS to remove the attitude from PS products.

As someone who had liked the cosmology detailed in PS but hated the poseuring pretentiousness of it, the fact that MoTP kept most of the detail about the Planes but made it "attitude-neutral" is one of the thing I'm happiest about 3rd ed D&D.

Nisarg

 

[Anthraxus]

As someone who had liked the cosmology detailed in PS but hated the poseuring pretentiousness of it, the fact that MoTP kept most of the detail about the Planes but made it "attitude-neutral" is one of the thing I'm happiest about 3rd ed D&D.

Nisarg

Just joining the discussion- I am genuinely suprised at all the people who seem to dislike the Planescape setting. I really like the setting. I like the Planescape version of Modrons. I don't really care for the "cant"- so I don't use it. I like Diterlizzi's art.

I think the content of the books certainly doesn't *force* anyone to conform to some "Punk-ish" setting, either. I have never used the Lady of Pain in the game, and it's not like she'll ever come around and kill the PC's if they get out of hand. Some DM's may play it that way, however...

I own the new Manual of the Planes, and find it a good addition to a 3.5 Planescape game, especially because Planescape is -I would say- 75%+ "fluff"(as opposed to "crunch"). It can be converted fairly easily. I haven't decided on the Planar Handbook yet. (Too broke to buy it right now)

If and when they come out with an updated Planescape setting, that's great. BCD does sound good, and I may pick it up when it hits the bookstands.

-A

 

[Piratecat]

Gang, please discuss this without dragging personal arguments into it. I'd rather we stay on topic than devolve into a "you said, I said" series of posts.

Thanks.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

As someone who had liked the cosmology detailed in PS but hated the poseuring pretentiousness of it, the fact that MoTP kept most of the detail about the Planes but made it "attitude-neutral" is one of the thing I'm happiest about 3rd ed D&D.

Nisarg

Sooo... what, exactly, was so pretentious about Planescape?

Or is this another example where pretentious = "things I don't like"?

EDIT: Personally, I'd love to see a Planescape book done in the FR sourcebook mold. Planescape was fun, it was interesting, and it had a unique hook and style of its own.

At the same time, I'd rather the line not invade the new hardcover planes books - keeping them generic so as to serve the bulk of all D&D gamers, and then offering non-generic products for specific audiences would be better.

Of course, all of the above depends on product viability - if it can't be done profitably, it shouldn't be done at all.

EDIT 2: As to the Planar Handbook, I traded it for the Iron Kingdoms sourcebook the day after I got it. I got, by far, the best side of that trade. The planar handbook was boring, boring, boring.


Patrick Y.