Planescape, 4e, and the problem of worlds without history

[avin]

Mustrum, I'm not on the "belief is the only cause" wagon.

If there's a good story to be told then it shall be told, the "why" is adjusted on the fly.

What I'm saying is, in *most* of my campaigns gods are slaves of belief. I won't wake up a dead god, unless somebody believes he would return. The god of dwarves did not create dwarves but he's there when the first dwarf starts believing that there is a dwarf god. And then dwarves start perceiving creation as something made by this dwarf god and, for dwarves, is how it works. Much like the Endless and the gods work on Sandman's mythology.

So, I would never deal with this example you gave me, because, in *most of* my campaigns, that god will be dead until people start thinking of him again.

Maybe, for my campaign, that god was never dead, only forgotten and weakened somewhere. (There are several cases like that on the mentioned Sandman mythology).

I praise the freedom of ideas. If I wake up some morning with the desire to run a game where there's only two gods, that existed before anything, created all races and are not subject to belief, hey ho, let's go!

TLDR: it's not to me you should address this questions, cause I don't think there is a "correct" way to rule how gods, belief and the multiverse works.

I use what has better timing for the campaign I'm running.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

This bothers me on many levels, and not just because I think there should be one great wheel to rule them all. Mainly, it means that many of the ideas associated with the planes as I understood them will not be carried forward into future generations of D&D players. That is, they no longer form a set of core assumptions that can serve as the basis of conversations and shared adventures.

The reason that these ideas will not be carried forward is that the original products are not sold and therefore not read or played.

Okay, so that's sad, at least to me. But what about the larger issue? I feel as though the designers of 2e's Planescape (in particular Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook, and Colin McComb) succeeding in creating an amazing fantasy realm that simply has no modern equal.

I believe that these claims are factually wrong. First, there are many detailed fantasy settings out there, some good, some bad. Second, the designers of Planescape adapted an existing fantasy realm, so their creation is not their creation alone.

Is there really a good reason for all of this amazing material to be either redacted or cut completely?

There are a host of good reasons. 1) It eliminates the need to reproduce earlier material in later books or to reproduce books for systems that are no longer supported. 2) It makes the game simpler for those just getting in to 4E. 3) Those who have the earlier books and wish to use them can easily adapt the material themselves for 4E. 4) ...

Still, I will no longer be able to purchase new gaming materials about the multiverse I had come to understand. A multiverse that I would argue is more colorful and more interesting than the one presently established.

It's time to leave the nest and create your own works for this world.

 

[Desdichado]

I will no longer be able to purchase new gaming materials about the multiverse I had come to understand. A multiverse that I would argue is more colorful and more interesting than the one presently established.

In other words; "I like Planescape a lot, and I don't like how they aren't using it specifically."

You sound like you're trying to make an attempt at objectifying your tastes, but really... that's just your taste. It's not true that Planescape is an objectively better cosmology than other alternatives. It's not true that the current set-up "has no history." It's not true that there are no longer shared assumptions that gamers across the globe can all use. None of those things are true. The only thing that's true is that there a superficial resemblance to Planescape has been removed from the existing 4e core cosmology.

As someone who's not much of a fan of the Great Wheel and how tied it is to the bizarre and clunky nine point alignment system, and a host of other D&Disms that I neither want nor support in my own games... I think it's a good move. In fact, they didn't divorce themselves enough from the past in terms of cosmology.

So, clearly YMMV. And when that happens, you can bet that for all your attempts at objectification, you're really just talking about "this is what I like just because I like it."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum, I'm not on the "belief is the only cause" wagon.

Well... Then you were not actually the target audience of my post.

But don't let that make you feel as if I have fired you as a reader, please!

 

[avin]

delete me (some pdf comment).

 

[tomBitonti]

A couple of points ...

First off, ironic, and sad, and partly making the original poster point, PDFs of the earlier material are no longer available as original purchases.

Second, much of this discussion would be avoided if 4E had adopted less badwrongfu about anything not 4E. (I think that is fair to claim.) One of the nice features of the Manual of the Planes was the section on alternate cosmologies. The game actively encouraged the players and GM to invent their own cosmologies. On of the issues that I have with 4E is the loss of that open approach. Why not have a section that explains how the 4E cosmology is the default, but other cosmologies are possible, with examples and ideas of setting up other cosmologies?

 

[avin]

Why not have a section that explains how the 4E cosmology is the default, but other cosmologies are possible, with examples and ideas of setting up other cosmologies?

Manual of the Planes 4E has a section on how to use the Great Wheel.

To me the problem is how fluff are presented now. Planescape fluff were less straight, more sinuous, there were more mistery around. Maybe its the kind of writing that is used.

 

[tomBitonti]

Manual of the Planes 4E has a section on how to use the Great Wheel.

To me the problem is how fluff are presented now. Planescape fluff were less straight, more sinuous, there were more mistery around. Maybe its the kind of writing that is used.

Hi. I didn't know that! I've basically stopped buying D&D books since the core PHB, MM, and DMG.

I'm thinking that I've diverged from the initial point:

Okay, so that's sad, at least to me. But what about the larger issue? I feel as though the designers of 2e's Planescape (in particular Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook, and Colin McComb) succeeding in creating an amazing fantasy realm that simply has no modern equal. In its totality, Planescape was beautiful, dangerous and absurd. The complex histories and ecologies of outerplanar beings served as the backdrop for some of D&D's most impressive features, such as the Blood War. (The fiends, in fact, were easily the most fleshed-out creatures in Planescape.)

Is there really a good reason for all of this amazing material to be either redacted or cut completely? Was trashing most of the multiverse (as it was constituted) worth it to "maximize playability"? Maybe I've become a grognard in that I don't think significant chunks of lore should be dropped because they are measurably less convenient during play, especially when they form the backdrop of established creature ecologies (see, for example, baatezu and tanar'ri tactics described in Hellbound: The Blood War).

So I suppose that I should ask: Is it at all likely that at some point we might see a Planar Landscapes: Planescape book? With all the editions of books that are being produced, could we see such a book at some point?

I'm finding, when I go back to that original point, is a resonance with the sense of loss in regards to having access to the older material, and that new players will see much less of it.

 

[underthumb]

So, clearly YMMV. And when that happens, you can bet that for all your attempts at objectification, you're really just talking about "this is what I like just because I like it."

If you're concerned that I might regard my opinions as something other than opinions, I am only too happy to assure you that I do not. At the same time, this is a discussion forum, and we may benefit from exchanging ideas and perspectives, even when there are no final and objective criteria on which to settle disagreements.

Also, I would encourage you to engage a more charitable reading of my posts, which were given from a distinctly personal perspective, and had at least some opinion markers such as "I feel".

 

[underthumb]

The reason that these ideas will not be carried forward is that the original products are not sold and therefore not read or played.

....

I believe that these claims are factually wrong. First, there are many detailed fantasy settings out there, some good, some bad. Second, the designers of Planescape adapted an existing fantasy realm, so their creation is not their creation alone.

I'll be honest, the matter-of-fact tone of your post in combination with your odd interpretation of my comments (did you think I believed 2nd Edition products to be in print?) doesn't motivate me to respond. Like Hobo, I would encourage you to engage a more charitable reading of my comments.