Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5663093" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that this flavour stuff is cool. I like that 4e has kept a lot of it (Carceri, Pandemonium, the Abyss) but largely shorn of the alignment baggage.(And I've used a lot of it in my old Rolemaster games, again shorn of the alignment baggage.)Yes, the alignment system, which seems to require the GM to prejudge a whole lot of stuff, and/or to exercise a whole lot of force during play.And also the Faction set up, which again seems (at least to me) to emphasise GM force (through playing the faction leadership, handing out missions etc - as you put it, "top down mission giving).Which is why it's been very interesting to see how you handled these things differently from my default expectations - a lot of player control/table consensus in relation to alignment, and having the factions become tools for the players rather than tools for the GM.The other apsect of Planescape which I've tended to see as hindering narrativist play is the fairly heavy metaplot - all the stuff that Shemeska seems, from his posts, to be into - but in the game you're describing it doesn't seem to have played much of a role.Anyway, this thread reinforces my belief that there's nothing like discussion about actual play to show us what a system and/or setting can do, and how!</blockquote>