Planescape Planescape IS D&D Says Jeremy Crawford

Planescape is Jeremy Crawford's favourite D&D setting. "It is D&D", he says, as he talks about how in the 2024 core rulebook updates Planescape will be more up front and center as "the setting of settings".

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
They changed the nature of reality by leaving it a planet, which is what it was before. That's not much of a change. Oh, and they now call it a dwarf planet, because it is small, also like it was before. So in the end Pluto remains a small planet.

I think scientists need to confer with high level wizards and see what altering reality really looks like. ;)
For the record, Pluto’s size is basically unrelated to its dwarf status. It’s big enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium (which is to say, it’s ball-shaped), so it’s big enough to qualify as a planet. The new criteria the International Astronomical Union added in 2006 was that a planet must have cleared its neighborhood of other objects. Since Pluto is in the Kuiper Belt (a belt of small icy objects, many of them Pluto-sized), that’s what rules it out from being a full planet. The thing is, if Earth were in the Kuiper Belt, it wouldn’t clear that neighborhood either. It was a change made specifically to keep the number of planets in our solar system manageable, cause otherwise hundreds if not thousands of Kuiper Belt objects would count as planets. Same as the addition of the requirement to have hydrostatic equilibrium that was added in the 1850s, and accompanying creation of the term “asteroid” was made specifically to keep all the objects in the asteroid belt from qualifying as planets (we were up to like 26 when that change was made).
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
For the record, Pluto’s size is basically unrelated to its dwarf status. It’s big enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium (which is to say, it’s ball-shaped), so it’s big enough to qualify as a planet. The new criteria the International Astronomical Union added in 2006 was that a planet must have cleared its neighborhood of other objects. Since Pluto is in the Kuiper Belt (a belt of small icy objects, many of them Pluto-sized), that’s what rules it out from being a full planet. The thing is, if Earth were in the Kuiper Belt, it wouldn’t clear that neighborhood either. It was a change made specifically to keep the number of planets in our solar system manageable, cause otherwise hundreds if not thousands of Kuiper Belt objects would count as planets. Same as the addition of the requirement to have hydrostatic equilibrium that was added in the 1850s, and accompanying creation of the term “asteroid” was made specifically to keep all the objects in the asteroid belt from qualifying as planets (we were up to like 26 when that change was made).
I think they missed that people would have been thrilled with more planets as much ad they are grouchy that they took one away from us.
 


Dire Bare

Legend
I think they missed that people would have been thrilled with more planets as much ad they are grouchy that they took one away from us.
Nah. Folks love to bitch. Regardless of the decisions of the IAU on celestial object definitions.

For the actual scientists . . . it's more a matter of "lumpers" vs. "splitters" in classification. "Lumpers" like to, well, lump as many things into as little separate categories as possible. Lumpers would have Pluto and its cousins all considered full planets. Splitters like to, well, split things into many discrete categories based on minute differences. With planets, the splitters won the day and Pluto and cousins now have their own category.

Look up how we currently classify the various "small bodies" in our solar system. You'd think the terms asteroid, meteoroid, and comet would suffice, but . . . hoo-boy, it's hella complicated and nuts. The splitters were given free reign in this area of astronomy!

Yet . . . the objects themselves don't change. Pluto is still Pluto, we just have better pictures now!
 




Quickleaf

Legend
Man, that Oct 6th Polygon review doesn't do the new Planescape book any favors.

Sharing some parts of the review that caught my eye...

The boxed set includes three hardcover books and a handy DM’s screen, all packaged inside a handsome slipcase. At its core is Sigil and the Outlands, a setting book that feels every inch a love letter to fans of that original video game. However, at just 96 pages, Sigil and the Outlands — much like the Spelljammer product’s Astral Adventurer’s Guide that came before it — feels kinda thin on details. Likewise, the included character backgrounds are nothing to write home about. While they do a good job of tying willing characters to the realm where this adventure is set, I’m not sure they have much utility outside this setting.

Frankly, what Sigil and the Outlands could have used is more pages with additional details on the city’s various factions, major buildings, and outlying Outland realms. Instead of that material, though, DMs get Morte’s Planar Parade, a bloated 64-page collection of monsters and stat blocks with lots of blank space left on its pages. The big draw here is the narrator, Morte, the plucky floating skull that played a central role in Planescape: Torment. Unfortunately, his humor doesn’t translate well from computer screen to the page.

...

Unfortunately, Turn of Fortune’s Wheel doesn’t do DMs any other favors with regard to its pacing as written, which is languid at best throughout. My biggest grievance are the several sections where DMs are asked to just sort of pad things out by throwing semi-random and seemingly unrelated mini adventures at players before the next story beat falls in line. The setting itself reinforces this lethargy, with an in-fiction timeline that can span “the course of weeks, years, or centuries.” While it’s all fine and good to play D&D for a long time, repeatedly and for several months or even years, taking that long to tell a complex story tends to kill the momentum. That’s especially true in this particular narrative, which is just as circular as the donut-shaped city of Sigil itself.

OTOH, Oct 3rd Techraptor review is more positive... But interestingly directly counters what Jeremy Crawford said about Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse being the most adaptable to a GM's own setting/adventures...

There's a lot that Planescape has going for it. There's plenty of information on Sigil and the Outlands, the effects that the Gate Towns will have on the world around them, and the kinds of monsters you might encounter living on the edges of the Planes.

That being said what info you find here isn't your standard "drop it into your current campaign" kind of info. It's highly specific to Planescape, and an adventure that is taking place here, or if your adventure is coming through The Outlands.

If you're thinking that this adventure sounds like one you want to play/run then it's a huge yes from me. I've already told my current party that once we're done with our current campaign that this is what I plan to run next.

However, if you're not about to step through a portal to Sigil or any of the Gate Towns then there's not as much reason to own this resource on such a specific topic.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Man, that Oct 6th Polygon review doesn't do the new Planescape book any favors.

Sharing some parts of the review that caught my eye...



OTOH, Oct 3rd Techraptor review is more positive... But interestingly directly counters what Jeremy Crawford said about Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse being the most adaptable to a GM's own setting/adventures...
Weird. All the previews I’ve seen and details I’ve read suggest to me the opposite of the last part. I haven’t seen anything that suggests you can’t take Shemeska and her gambling den and put it in Sharn or Ravnica, or indeed that you can’t put Sigil itself into any setting.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top