Planescape 3E by WotC

[reanjr]

In the chat about the Planar Handbook a few weeks ago, Andy Collins mentioned that WOTC considers making new settings more profitable and less risky than trying to relaunch "failed" settings.

While his statement, I'm sure, is correct, Planescape is hardly a "failed" setting. It simply ran it's course. The original Deities and Demigods and Legends and Lore were not failed, but after a while, they both went out of print. But THEY were revived for 3e.

I don't think this means that Planescape will be. It just isn't a failed setting. Not like a couple of them.

 

[reanjr]

I don't see this as a significant element of Planescape, in the first place, so I'm not sure it would be a problem. Seriously - Krynn? For the gods' sake (heh), the two most important deities in the Dragonlance pantheon were relegated to "aspects" of Bahamut and Tiamat. The various Prime worlds were hardly Planescape's concern.

Paladine and Takhisis, while very similar to Bahamut and Tiamat, they were not aspects of those deities. I'm pretty sure this is stated explicitly somewhere (though some planar scholars have been said to think this is true, they are wrong). It is surely very much implied in On Hallowed Ground.

 

[Pants]

While his statement, I'm sure, is correct, Planescape is hardly a "failed" setting.

Depends upon what you mean by 'failed.' Quality wise? Not at all. Monetary-wise? Depends. I've seen claims made by several that Planescape didn't sell all too well. I've also seen claims made that it did sell good.

 

[reanjr]

Actually, Planescape continued for a year after WotC bought TSR. Dead Gods, Tales from the Infinite Staircase, Faction War, and other products came out with the WotC logo.

If they actually had the Wizards logo wouldn't that be nearing 2 years then? They didn't replace the TSR logo at first. I remember them saying they weren't going to, either. Bastards... The TSR logo instituted in the 90s (the one with the dragon making the S) was awesome.

 

[reanjr]

I don't think that was the result of trying to distance themselves from Planescape, other than the somewhat arcane rules variations the setting brought to the table. Rather, I think that's a testimony to the enduring popularity of the setting.

Arcane rules variations?

Seriously, I don't really remember many rules in Planescape at all.

The only things I can think of off hand are the planar magic alterations, which weren't too bad (they even had those little sepia icons for quick reference).

 

[reanjr]

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

I don't see anything wrong with Manual of the Planes. It fits pretty nicely with Planescape. But only if you have the old Planescape products. It is not a 3e replacement for the setting. I personally own all the Planescape products (a couple PDF but most are actual product) and feel I can run a full Planescape campaign with the material. It's a testament to how rules-light Planescape was that most of the Planescape rules made it into MotP. There's certainly come things I would have liked to see like 3-level faction prestige classes and a bit more continuity (Formians?) but I think the rules updates are fine.

For someone wanting to start a Planar campaign, though, MotP and the Planar Handbook just don't cut it. There's no real campaign setting info there (nor did I expect any since it's not a campaign setting). Nothing can compare to the richness of flavor in Planescape.

 

[reanjr]

...the flavor and atmosphere therein kicks the socks off 90% of the 3e material...

You missed 10%.

 

[reanjr]

i'm surprised more people hadn't thought of that idea.

Me too. Perhaps the people at Wizards hadn't though of it either...

One can only hope.

 

[reanjr]

Depends upon what you mean by 'failed.' Quality wise? Not at all. Monetary-wise? Depends. I've seen claims made by several that Planescape didn't sell all too well. I've also seen claims made that it did sell good.

Now Corporations sometimes have weird ideas of exactly what failed means, but to me it means unprofitable. Meaning that it actually LOST money. Planescape was not unprofitable. It may not have been as profitable as Forgotten Realms was. It may not have been a whopping success. But I just can't buy that it "failed".

 

[Pants]

For someone wanting to start a Planar campaign, though, MotP and the Planar Handbook just don't cut it.

They work fine enough. Maybe you might need the Planescape material to run a 'by the books PS game,' but for a planar game, all I need is the MotP. The book is chock full of interesting info, sites, and plot hooks.
Just like I don't need source books on every region to run an Eberron game, I can run one fine with just the Campaign Setting book.

Nothing can compare to the richness of flavor in Planescape.

I dunno about that...