D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Savage Wombat]

Well, the PC's are potentially attacked by Mercykillers at one point. Does that count?

Sure, that would count. Although it would be pretty minor if it's, say, a wandering encounter instead of a plot element.

Now, does every book you claim references Planescape include a direct reference to a faction of Sigil, spell keys, or the other things I mentioned earlier? I suspect that's not actually the claim you're trying to get me to disprove.

You know, I could go this route. I'll assert that, based on my memory, the environment books for 3.5 (Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack) have references to the planes that do not directly reference Planescape in any way, by my definition of course. Thus transferring to you the onus to comb through old books hoping to disprove a claim.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, that would count. Although it would be pretty minor if it's, say, a wandering encounter instead of a plot element.

Now, does every book you claim references Planescape include a direct reference to a faction of Sigil, spell keys, or the other things I mentioned earlier? I suspect that's not actually the claim you're trying to get me to disprove.

You know, I could go this route. I'll assert that, based on my memory, the environment books for 3.5 (Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack) have references to the planes that do not directly reference Planescape in any way, by my definition of course. Thus transferring to you the onus to comb through old books hoping to disprove a claim.

Oooh, I forgot those books. I really like all three of those. Fantastic books. Excellent way to write planar material for D&D that has no ties to Planescape. Great examples. :thumbup:
[MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] - let me rephrase. What are the odds that I could get published in Dungeon or Dragon if I submit a planar article or adventure that directly runs counter to Planescape lore?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have two somewhat petty reasons for disliking it, and one serious reason.

I ain't here to defend it (lawd knows it's a fools errand to try and sell bacon to a room full of imams), but I would like to offer a bit of a counterpoint, in the hopes that it might be of some use to consider where other folks are coming from at least.

[sblock]

The petty reasons are (i) the cant, which for someone who is familiar with vernacular English as spoken in England and some Commonwealth countries (eg Australia) is just silly - for me "berk" isn't evocative of some Planar otherworld, but rather a term of mild abuse (similar to "idiot" or "d*ckhead") that I used to use as a child;

Yeah, it's ye olde style vernacular as filtered through an American sensibility for a fantasy world. Not surprising that it wouldn't exactly translate linguistically. I wonder what would though? Is there some sort of inventive slang one can use to convey the feel of a sarcastic, jaded, Dickensian sensibility to someone regardless of linguistic heritage? Probably not. It's not the kind of thing often written into a pattern of speech.

I'd point out though that the intent of the cant isn't to evoke a planar otherworld, but precisely the opposite -- to make it jaded and casual. The language of PS is the language of vernacular, of the "common tongue," of slang and dirty jokes in the oily back-alley. It's part of the feel of PS because PS is, in part, about taking those grand ideas that are discussed in high arcane jargon by proper folk and skewering them.

and (ii) the description of the factions as "philosophers with clubs" - I am a philosopher in real life, and am fairly familiar with most European language and some non-European philosophical traditions, and don't find the factions to be very philosophically sophisticated.

Aye, the whole "doctors don't find damage believable" issue, but with philosophy. They're certainly not meant to be very philosophically sophisticated, just basically internally consistent enough to be coherent "things that people believe" (and since people once believed in an old man sitting on a mountain hurling down lightning bolts, this is not a particularly high threshold to cross). They are, at best, an Intro to Philosophy, but they're not even that, given that they smash elements of religions and spiritualisms right up inside the things and take them in directions that wouldn't make sense in reality at all.

My serious reason for disliking Planescape is the one I posted upthread (I think in the post you replied to): its appeal seems to me primarily be to those who want the experience of play to be revelations of the cleverness or quirkiness of Planescape. To me, it's emphasis seems to be overwhelmingly on exploration as the goal of play - exploring the alignment system, enjoying the urban squalor of Sigil, being amusd by wacky portal keys, etc.

That is not what I am looking for in a RPG.

IMXP, the experience of play in Planescape is one of re-shaping reality according to the ideals you hold. "Exploration" in terms of "go somewhere cool, do some goal there, come home" is best used in service of that ideal, meaning that the context for "lets go visit a dead god" should be, for instance, "to discover the source of its power and use this for our own purposes."

Which might be, "Distribute it among the people so that they have no cause to worship false gods."

Or might be, "Use it to make me more powerful so that I can lead my very own cult of loyal sychophants."

Or might be, "Poke a hole in Limbo and see if it all drains out."

Or other things. The idea is that these are player-defined purposes. Infinity is their plaything.

I think the breakdown of tiers gives some insight into what I think a "good Planescape campaign" has in it as far as meat on its bones. And it's all about what you accomplish as a character, not where you go.

I don't know that this matches the modules much. To be honest, most 2e-era adventures are not great, and even the best suffer from deep flaws, regardless of the setting they were for. I never paid much attention to the adventures for PS. The planewalker's handbook is a pretty good primer to the setting, though as a "primer," it certainly focuses on the what and who more tightly than on the DM's side -- though the concept of Belief Points as a kind-of-proto-FATE-point is notable.
[/sblock]

 

[Shemeska]

Oooh, I forgot those books. I really like all three of those. Fantastic books. Excellent way to write planar material for D&D that has no ties to Planescape. Great examples. :thumbup:
[MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] - let me rephrase. What are the odds that I could get published in Dungeon or Dragon if I submit a planar article or adventure that directly runs counter to Planescape lore?

Well it wasn't impossible. Off the top of my head I'd point you to the article on the 'Plane of Radiance' in Dragon 321, which was a novel, variant plane that wasn't part of the Great Wheel (despite the similar name, it was different enough in concept from the Quasielemental Plane of Radiance'). Clearly new options were open for print.

If you wanted to write on a topic already written about in prior material, you'd have to go about it like any other topic with previous publication - ie do your homework and build upon it rather than overwrite it. Contradictory lore is also of course viable if couched in terms of legend or unreliable narrators (which is something that Planescape itself utilized very often).

 

[Hussar]

Let me be more specific.

If I wanted to describe Acheron as a realm of post apocalyptic cities, no flying cubes at all, what would my chances of getting published be?

After all, that does not run counter to any core D&D material. The plane of Acheron is not really described anywhere but in a Planescape specific manual (the Planewalker's Handbook, 1996, according to Wikipedia). So, what would my chances be?

 

[Imaro]

My knowledge of Planescape is based on a range of sourcebooks (Planewalker's Handbook by Monte Cook is the main one I can think of; I have seen it praised more than once by PS fans on these boards) and modules (Dead Gods is one, the other I can think of is Tales of the Infinite Staircase - both Monte Cook, I think). This is the first I've heard these described as "secondary sources" - Dead Gods is frequently touted as the great Planescape modue, they all ship with the Planescape logo on the cover, and Monte Cook was, I thought, one of the pre-eminent Planescape authors.

The content of Planescape is also ascertainable in other ways eg read the 3E MotP, or an adventure like Bastion of Broken Souls or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and subtract the 1st ed AD&D MotP and most of the remainder is Planescape - Sigil most obviously, but other elements too like factions, Lower Planer backstory, etc.

Perhaps all this material that shipped under the Planescape banner was actually contradictory in tone and content to the boxed set, but I've never seen anyone assert that.

So you've never actually read the main Planescape Campaign setting... got it.

That may well be so. My dislike of Planescape isn't based upon a view of its literary merits.

Well I was also speaking to it's merits as a setting for gameplay not just as something to be read... but yeah I get it, you don't like Planescape based on the snippets and tidbits you've pieced together.

I have two somewhat petty reasons for disliking it, and one serious reason... snip for brevity

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] addressed this much better than I could...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let me be more specific.

If I wanted to describe Acheron as a realm of post apocalyptic cities, no flying cubes at all, what would my chances of getting published be?

After all, that does not run counter to any core D&D material. The plane of Acheron is not really described anywhere but in a Planescape specific manual (the Planewalker's Handbook, 1996, according to Wikipedia). So, what would my chances be?

You haven't ever cracked the covers of a book called "Manual of the Planes," have ya?

I mean, if you're not working for WotC, go nuts, nothing's stopping you from doing that TODAY if you wanted. "Acheron" is in the public domain. Write up a PDF and put it on RPGNow.

If you're working for WotC, you know that you're going to have an audience with some preconceived notions associated with that word. So you would want to consider is the published history of the plane in D&D, to understand the context in which your work will be received. That's part of the deal you accept when you're WotC versus when you're some jerk on the internet: you're working with terms that have meaning to people already. That means you'd want a sense of how people are already using the plane before you went and did much with it.

Which means you'd know that the 1e Acheron and the 3e Acheron as described in each e's Manual of the Planes was pretty much the same as it was in Planescape: a void of floating and colliding cubes.

In which case of course you couldn't publish your apocalyptic city Acheron, it displays a deep ignorance of your audience. An audience who sees such ignorance often sees it as insulting -- which, you know, since you absolutely failed to understand what they might want before trying to sell them something, yeah, it kind of is.

So then I'd ask why you need your plane of apocalyptic cities to be called "Acheron." Just dub it something else, I dunno, "Chutah." It's not like there's not a lot of words with similar associations and no real use in D&D. Google around for five minutes.

I think that if WotC wanted to publish an adventure that made use of a plane of ruined cities named Chutah as part of a world where, I dunno, all the planes are possible futures for the setting, though, that they should be able to. And if you want to publish that setting with that place named Acheron, absolutely no one is stopping you, currently.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let me be more specific.

If I wanted to describe Acheron as a realm of post apocalyptic cities, no flying cubes at all, what would my chances of getting published be?

After all, that does not run counter to any core D&D material. The plane of Acheron is not really described anywhere but in a Planescape specific manual (the Planewalker's Handbook, 1996, according to Wikipedia). So, what would my chances be?

Probably less than if you tried to make it the mythological River of Woe that the Charon ferried people across. And this bugs me a lot about D&D mythology in general. If you're claiming the name, the connotations should come with it.

 

[Remathilis]

Let me be more specific.

If I wanted to describe Acheron as a realm of post apocalyptic cities, no flying cubes at all, what would my chances of getting published be?

After all, that does not run counter to any core D&D material. The plane of Acheron is not really described anywhere but in a Planescape specific manual (the Planewalker's Handbook, 1996, according to Wikipedia). So, what would my chances be?

Better question: why would you?

Seriously; Is there a specific reason you need the name Acheron? Your post-apocalyptic cities can't have its own name, or be a demi-plane, or built on one the cubes? Is there a specific reason you need to contradict established cannon, beyond being contrary?

Now, if you named your plane Shavarash (which is a relatively undescribed Eberron variant of Acheron) then you'd get a lot of traction. Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[Remathilis]

In which case of course you couldn't publish your apocalyptic city Acheron, it displays a deep ignorance of your audience. An audience who sees such ignorance often sees it as insulting -- which, you know, since you absolutely failed to understand what they might want before trying to sell them something, yeah, it kind of is.

You just summed up a vast number of people's objections to 4e Eladrins, Archons, and Devas...