Planescape 3E by WotC

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I hate to point out the obvious; but one really satisfied customer is a financial failure. As, apparently, was whatever number they actually did sell the setting to.

No kidding?

I was just stating that one would think that if someone like me bought that much Planescape material, then other more dedicated players would have bought even more.

When Planescape came out all I had (that I actually bought in a store) was the AD&D 2E Player's Handbook, and the Thief's book. I had the AD&D MMII and Legends & Lore, but I bought those from someone in school.
Then I got a little flyer in the mail about an upcoming campaign setting called Planescape...
Still have the flyer too.

 

[Nisarg]

Personally I ended up enjoying the Manual of the Planes for 3e much more than I ever did Planescape.. I could see WoTC coming out with a "sigil sourcebook" or something like that.
But I very much doubt they will ever reboot Planescape as a setting. The Planar books have taken its place in the 3e cosmology.

There's a lot of good Planar material out there though, besides the WoTC stuff you have "Portals and Planes" by FFG, which presents a very alternate sort of way to handle planar travel (a few different ways, incidentally). And now this new book by Monte & the gang.

I would like to know whether any of the hardcore Planescape fans feel they can use the new stuff coming out now and apply it to a 3rd ed. campaign?

What is it specifically about Planescape that makes it so different as to not be compatible with the current stuff? I don't really see it.

Nisarg

 

[Andy_Collins]

Is Planescape a 'failed' setting?

If I actually described Planescape as a "failed" setting, then mark that down as a colossal example of misspeaking, and accept my apologies.

Just because a setting doesn't exist any more doesn't make it "failed," any more than the fact that we don't call the current year "2003" makes last year a "failed" year.

There have been many succesful campaign settings over the lifespan of D&D; the simple truth is that settings (like virtually all product lines) come and go. There are precisely two D&D settings that have been published without interruption since their debut in a published format.

One is Forgotten Realms, which has enjoyed a massive line of support (game products, novels, computer games, novels, living campaigns, and oh did I mention novels?) that sustains it well beyond those who actually use the setting for their home game. It's a powerful intellectual property.

The other is Eberron, whose lifespan currently measures at 2 months and counting.

What I meant (and what I certainly tried to say), was that when we're looking to add a campaign setting (or any product line) to our mix of products, we generally favor new lines over returns to old lines. That's because we believe that we have a better chance of hooking a larger audience with a new approach then by reviving an old one.

Look at it this way: If you're trying to sell a new product line to a fan base that has a significant "memory" of the past, why try to change opinions that have already been made about a previous version of the line? It's much easier to build an opinion about something brand new.

And anyway, it's not like Planescape was a world-beating brand that was embraced by the entirety (or even a majority) of the D&D-buying market. At its height, I'd guess there were no more than a few thousand active Planescape campaigns in the entire world. That's no slam on Planescape--it's really more of a commentary on the weak and fractured market of D&D gamers that existed in the mid- to late 90s.

While I don't want to stretch this comparison too far, it's one thing when Hollywood revamps an old intellectual property that's remembered by millions of people in a key moviegoing demographic--the same logic doesn't necessarily apply to a property that appealed to only a few thousand players. The financial reward just isn't there, frankly. You can chalk that up as crass commercialism if you will, but remember that the opposite approach--publish a nigh-infinite number of product lines regardless of profits--helped put TSR (and, almost, D&D) out of existence.

 

[Alzrius]

I think the thing that bothers me the most isn't so much that Planescape itself ended...as multiple people have pointed out, that was pretty much completely inevitable.

What bothers me is the departure from the spirit of Planescape. It wasn't just a setting, it seriously expanded and added flavor to the construction of the D&D multiverse, and the planes aren't something that go away even after a campaign about them is done (likewise, even after Spelljammer ended, references to spelljamming et al kept coming up for years).

Things like turning a single multiverse into many (why? Why was that done?), the almost-total ignoring of modrons, having several planar layers get their names changed for no apparent reason, nixing several inner planes altogether, it goes on and on. It wasn't just that the product line ended...WotC seems (for some reason) to be actively trying to escape from the feeling of Planescape whenever anything planar does come up.

And that is the saddest thing of all.

 

[Incenjucar]

Agreed.

My theory is this: If you're going to utilize something, do it right, or don't do it at all.

If you're going to go for the pre-Planescape version of the planes, then don't even MENTION Sigil.

I have no issue with them wanting to go for 1e style.

I do have an issue with them trying to shake a Lady of Pain rag doll at me and say "If I rub this on the book, you'll buy it, right?"

--

It's especially irritating for me because Planescape is, ultimately, why I've been in to D&D all these years. The basic game is a fun excuse to hang out with buddies, but I have hormones now, and have other 'roleplaying' activities I can do. I can also find as much fantasy via MU*s online, and without having to hunt people down and buying books.

Heck, I'm a game theorist and reader more than I am a player or DM. I like to mess with the concepts, the worlds, and the better monsters especially. I use D&D to fuel my own creativity more than anything. PS was and remains extremely strong in my mind (especially considering my first RPG was Cyberpunk, which I later gave away because PS had swallowed me), equal to how the comic Gold Digger (Partially D&D-based, even) has driven my art for even longer. And because GD has remained itself, and only gotten better (Color!), when I have enough money, I drop 50 bucks for the most recent compilation.

Frankly, aside from the monster books (Draconomicon, Serpent Kingdoms, etc), and possibly the upcoming environment books, D&D is losing my interest. I loved D&D because a few settings were awe-inspiring. Now I can do better on my own.

Thankfully, the PS crew still seem to want my money. They can keep producing stuff like that WITHOUT rules, just a book about a world or a universe that's not even a novel, and I'll buy it.

More ways to kill things? Eh. I'll pass. There's a free EQ-style game (which even utilizes the idea of planes!) in the works, that's got some decent 3D and is 'soon' to have combat, and is already in 'run around and RP' stage, if I want to go on a spree in the midst of RP.

 

[Alzrius]

the comic Gold Digger (Partially D&D-based, even) has driven my art for even longer. And because GD has remained itself, and only gotten better (Color!), when I have enough money, I drop 50 bucks for the most recent compilation.

Now if only there'd be a Gold Digger d20.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I do have an issue with them trying to shake a Lady of Pain rag doll at me and say "If I rub this on the book, you'll buy it, right?"

I hear that.
The setting is enough of a draw that they'll strip-mine it, but not enough of one that it will be published in its entirety, apparently.

Even the PCGen's random name function would spit out Planescape NPC names...

Shafted.

 

[Shemeska]

*pauses* I get a sudden sense of deja vu here that reminds me of the massive and sprawling threads on the WotC boards about this same subject, and the same complaints and questions. That never truly got answered. Eh.

As a player and DM new to DnD in 3rd edition, I'm living proof that old campaign settings snag new devotees and don't let go. God the flavor and atmosphere therein kicks the socks off 90% of the 3e material, no offense intended but there's big shoes to fill on planar material.

 

[BOZ]

Andy, (if you're still following)

this question doesn't involve Planescape (my above comments should clearly illustrate why), but rather most of the other ex-settings. instead of attempting to revive product lines, have you considered going more of the Ghostwalk-type route? you know, release a single all-inclusive package book that details a particular campaign setting and what differentiates it from the norm. this would give DMs and players enough to start building on, and if they wanted more stuff they could seek out older edition product. this reintroduces the material without a large commitment from the publisher. if the demand proved to be great enough, you could consider providing additional material. Ravenloft (AFAIK) is still licensed out, but you could publish such a book for Spelljammer, Mystara, etc this way.

 

[Clueless]

I use D&D to fuel my own creativity more than anything.
...
More ways to kill things? Eh. I'll pass. There's a free EQ-style game (which even utilizes the idea of planes!) in the works, that's got some decent 3D and is 'soon' to have combat, and is already in 'run around and RP' stage, if I want to go on a spree in the midst of RP.

To be honest?
I'll second this.

RPGs are about creativity - as a player or GM. And while one could *easily* say "We're giving you all these Pr.Classes, Feats, Skills, Spells etc so you can *use* them in your game. These are tools for your system." There's a critical piece of information missing here.

Not Every GM Is As Creative As A Writer

Due to time, or personal inclination - setting information is *also* a valuable part of a release. It makes a book enjoyable to read, it gives a GM tools to make plots, players an understand so the GM doesn't have to spend time he may not have to get them up to speed, and a conceptual whole for a world.

Which means - by not providing flavor with the crunch - you're failing the creativity of the audience.

Now, to soften this a bit, this is a general rule to apply across the board for all games (and I've played a *lot* so yes - it does apply across the board). But if it's something that the editors of current D20 DnD forget - then, there's a good chance the cash flow will simply migrate elsewhere. Once the players have the core books they need - they'll go someplace else to get the flavors they need.