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

[I'm A Banana]

when they point to the sorts of play that Planescape supports, point to setting exploration

Still not sure what "setting exploration" means in practice for you, and I don't understand what about "setting exploration" turns you off.

I got the impression that it was about essentially going to visit and have adventures in various setting locations, but the three examples I gave of a player leading a cult, a player breaching the planes, and a player bestowing the power of the gods on mortals, don't really do that, and you said they were still "setting exploration"...so that's apparently not it.

The only place I find contention at is the fact that nothing forces the PC's to become "mythic figures"... but certainly it is within their capability to become such in the Planescape setting.

It's worth noting that even if the PC's themselves don't become mythic figures, their ideas do. That's one of the things about defining the multiverse according to your beliefs -- your convictions change cosmology, move worlds, transform infinities, even if no one remembers your name. No one remembers how the Xaositects started, but their ideas define life for millions. You get to launch that next big movement.

 

[Imaro]

It's worth noting that even if the PC's themselves don't become mythic figures, their ideas do. That's one of the things about defining the multiverse according to your beliefs -- your convictions change cosmology, move worlds, transform infinities, even if no one remembers your name. No one remembers how the Xaositects started, but their ideas define life for millions. You get to launch that next big movement.

Yeah this was exactly along the lines I was thinking of... can you imagine being so dedicated and believing so much in your ideal(s) that you actively forsake becoming "mythic" in nature so that the man never overshadows or corrupts the ideal(s)... to me that's much more poignant and epic than becoming a mythic god of something...

 

[Nivenus]

But that's just marketing speak. Read any GH material - you'll see that the deities whose planer hangouts are described in MotP are not part of Greyhawk.

The MM2 incorporated Greyhawk references (eg in the Valley Elf description) but that doesn't mean that the Valley of the Mage was "canonical" in 1st ed AD&D. I really think the whole notion of "canonical" lore for 1st ed AD&D - as opposed to, say, certain settings pubished during the 1st ed era - is problematic. The deities of Greyhawk weren't the "core" deities of D&D yet anyway in 1st edition.

So is Greyhawk canon to generic D&D or isn't it? Because you seem to be going back and forth on this one. If it is, then setting material does encroach on "core" D&D (and vice versa). If it isn't then this point seems irrelevant as my key point was that the MotP was considered "canon" in regards to 1e D&D's "assumed" ideas about the planes, rather than to Greyhawk specifically.

In any case you're mistaken: the Greyhawk deities were clearly placed among the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel in the original Dragon articles featuring them. Heironeous is set in the Seven Heavens, Hextor in Acheron, St. Cuthbert in Arcadia, etc. Greyhawk's made use of the Great Wheel since 1st edition.

In that framework, "chaotic" equated roughy to CE and "lawful" roughly to LG. Moldvay even comes out and says it: lawful is usually good, chaotic usually evil. You can see it in the magazine discussion of the time, too: clerics use healing spells and raise dead, while anti-clerics use harming spells and finger of death (the precursor to slay living); lawful characters rescue villagers, chaotic ones murder them and sacrifice them to dark gods.

The 4e alignment framework is very much a harking back to this sort of single-axis alignment, only it inserts a couple of extra gradations on the axis.

Sort of but not really. Here's the thing, law was presumed good and chaos was presumed evil, but the details were a little bit more complicated than that. Villains and heroes could each be "neutral" instead of lawful or chaotic (indeed orcs were as likely to chaotic or neutral) while certain creatures of "law" were pretty unconcerned with good (treants, for example, read more like an example of lawful neutral than lawful good). And again, Gary Gygax himself is on record as stating that his inspiration for the alignment system was Moorcock's Elric series, which similarly positions law as superficially good and chaos as superficially evil, whereas the truth is that both are kind of undesirable in their extremes.

I'll grant you that the addition of good and evil as another axis distinguished law and chaos as a separate conflict more clearly, but it seems to me the idea was there from the beginning.

I'm not 100% sure what the puzzle is. Do you mean "How do you play D&D with an emphasis on conflict that isn't simply meaningful within the fiction but is meaningful to those who read and engage with the fiction" - or, as @Doug McCrae put it, turns upon stuff that real people care about?

<snip>

In an RPG, moving the focus away from setting exploration, and onto subject matter that people care about for reasons other than mere curiosity, is no harder than in a movie. And in someways easier, because if an RPG is working right than the players (due to author participation) will have a higher level of immediate buy-in than the typical movie audience, and therefore more tolerant of what would otherwise be rather banal storytelling. (I think it was earlier in this thread, but perhaps in a recent post in a different thread, that I compared RPGing to jamming with friends. At least in my case, the music I might produce when jamming with friends is really very poor, but is nevertheless pleasing and enjoyable precisely because of the identity of creators and audience.)

For instance, in the case of law/gods vs chaos/primordials, what people care about (or, at least, my players) is fairly classic stuff like creativity vs order, change vs comfortable conservatism, hope for the future vs the weight of the past, etc. Because several of the players in my game are playing devotees of the Raven Queen, the issue of hope vs the past is also focused through a particular prism that carries its own thematic and value weight, namely, the significance of mortality and the nature of death. And it is also easy to bring into play related issues like free (self-)expression vs loyalty (to others)/honour (which can be seen as a type of loyalty to onself).

I'm with others; I don't really get how you see this kind of storyline as incompatible with Planescape. If anything the fact that belief is a powerful force for shaping the universe seems to make the decisions people make all the more important.

 

[Aldarc]

Right, but the name "archon" in the context of both celestial archons and elemental archons has little do with the ancient title. It's just what the creatures are called - they have no other name (at least none that's mentioned in any of the lore I've read).

Perhaps it's time then for them to get another name. I know, I know. The name is part of the dogmas of tradition. Gamers are worse than the Vatican councils at time.

As for celestial archons being angels, that's not entirely incorrect. But in 1e-3e lore angels and archons were actually separate kinds of celestials (which is, to a certain extent, calling a rose by any other name). The lore here was actually somewhat inelegant - angels could be of any good alignment whereas most celestials (like devils, demons, and daemons/yugoloths) corresponded to a particular type of good alignment (archons were lawful good, guardinals were neutral good, eladrin were chaotic good).

For a cosmology so anal-retentive about symmetry, it's surprising that the lore, as you say, is so inelegant.

I'm with others; I don't really get how you see this kind of storyline as incompatible with Planescape. If anything the fact that belief is a powerful force for shaping the universe seems to make the decisions people make all the more important.

Perhaps, but Planescape seems so focused on preserving the status quo of the quasi-space opera setting that the little guys often feel completely overshadowed in the setting, in my experience at least.

[insert your counter-anecdotal experiences here]

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm with others; I don't really get how you see this kind of storyline as incompatible with Planescape. If anything the fact that belief is a powerful force for shaping the universe seems to make the decisions people make all the more important.

It's really weird to me. As someone who has been playing Planescape since '94, reading [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s preferred method of play without hearing about the dislike of Planescape, my general response would have been "Boy do I have the campaign setting that is absolutely perfect for that!" So, color me incredibly confused.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Perhaps, but Planescape seems so focused on preserving the status quo of the quasi-space opera setting that the little guys often feel completely overshadowed in the setting, in my experience at least.

[insert your counter-anecdotal experiences here]

I dunno if you can define a thing so stridently based on your own experiences. It'd be like me getting a bad steak and saying "Steak seems tough, chewy, charred, and generaly disgusting in my experience, so I imagine that those who like it must enjoy such things, and this is not something I enjoy."

I much prefer comparing best to best. PS at its best is pretty much the opposite of preserving the status quo. In fact, I don't know of many settings where I'd describe "preserving the status quo" to be something that the best experiences of those settings have to offer. Maybe FR and Greyhawk? (don't have a whole lot of experience with either) Maybe the Nentir Vale (in that heroism is in preserving the world from an existential threat)? Certainly not DL, or PS, or DS...

 

[Elderbrain]

I think I finally had an epiphany.

Let me see if I can work through this so that it makes sense, because, for me at least, it seems to explain why I'm having such an uphill battle trying to make my point.

The difference here is between a resource and a setting. The Planes (not Planescape, but all the Planes) are a single setting, not a resource.

Take an orc. An orc is a resource. There is no really inherent elements of an orc that I can't mold, change or eject and still have it recognisable as an orc, by and large. By default, orcs worship Gruumsh, but, if I want demon worshipping orcs, no one will bat an eye. If I want pirate demon cultist orcs, again, not a problem. Heck, if I want demon worshipping, ninja pirate orcs riding dinosaurs, I can probably get away with that and, while people might not like the idea, it won't be criticised as a canon issue. Orcs, as I said, are a resource. There is no real expectation that an orc in Greyhawk will be the same as an orc in Forgotten Realms or Eberron or Athas for that matter. And certainly no expectation that an orc in any given sourcebook or module will automatically follow orc lore set out in the default setting.

Basically, you can take an orc and do pretty much whatever you want with it and it's still an orc. It's a resource for building a setting, not part of any specific setting.

But, look at how the planes are presented in the 1e Manual of the Planes. They are not presented as a resource, they are very, very specific about what the planes are, what they look like, what things you will find there and what unique, named individuals from D&D canon you will find there. Gruumsh hangs out on Acheron. That's not a resource book, that's a setting book. And all settings are defined by their canon. That's why changes to The Planes generates such strong reactions. You are messing with a setting's canon and that setting is pretty specific and has loads of lore for it. All you have to do is look at the hugely negative reaction to the 4e Realms and you see what happens when you futz about with setting canon.

Compare the MotP to something like Sandstorm, which I would call a resource book. In Sandstorm, it defines a wasteland in broad terms, whether big or small, above ground or under, magical or not and then outlines a number of different options that you may or may not find in a given waste. Then it leaves everything up to the DM to create that waste area. But, the MotP doesn't do that. The MotP defines every plane is very specific detail.

See, my mistake was always thinking of the planes as a resource, same as you would treat the Prime Material. In the Prime, if I'm running, say, Eberron, there's no expectation that Faerun also exists in that campaign setting. It might if I add it there, but, there's certainly no expectation that that is true. But, in The Planes setting, the planes are single, unified setting. An orc in Faerun is different from an orc in Eberron. But a Yugoloth is the same in both settings because Yuguloth come from The Planes setting. My other mistake was thinking that this was a Planescape change that came in later on down the road. But, really, it's always been that way. The planes were never a resource for the DM, or at least, not for a very long time. They have always been The Planes, defined and detailed as a single campaign setting that never changes regardless of where you come from.

A character from Athas, or Ansalon, or Khorvaire or Faerun who travels to Acheron ALWAYS enters into The Planes setting. And The Planes isn't a resource where the DM is expected to create a campaign setting from the building blocks provided. It's a complete setting unto itself.

And without canon, you cannot have a setting. Settings are defined by canon. Resources don't need canon, they only need suggestions. Note, not all Prime Material monsters are resources either. Drow come to mind as something that are much more of a setting than a resource. If I feature drow in an adventure, that comes with all sorts of pretty strong expectations based on the lore surrounding Drow. I wouldn't expect to find a Drow castle aboveground, for example. Planar creatures and elements are far more like Drow than orcs or kobolds. Orcs and kobolds and the vast majority of Prime Material goodies come with suggestions - Kobolds might be slaves of dragons, or they might not be. But the planes never change. Heck, look at Remalthalis' reaction to my idea of changing Acheron. In a resource, that would be perfectly fine. But Acheron is part of a complete setting and it has canon. It cannot be changed. If I want a post apocalyptic plane, I should use a different name, because Acheron is already established as its own thing. If I wanted blink elves, I should find a new name, not repurpose an existing part of canon of a setting.

Does this make sense? Is it fair to say that The Planes are a setting and not a resource?

- Yes, that pretty much sums up how I (and some others) view the Great wheel. Not saying that's how it should be or how it should have been done, just saying that's how we see it, and why we don't like changes. Not that every change bothers me equally... I'm much less bothered by what they did with Incubi/Succubi and Cambions this time around than in 4e, because I CAN still use them to fill the roles they play in Planescape adventures (since Succubi now work with both Devils AND Demons, I can have one in the Abyss, and likewise Cambions can be Chaotic Evil.) Naturally, Shemeska has a more hard-line-in-the-sand approach to this... opinions will vary! But yes, anytime people have been using material to play an ongoing campaign, they hope (and expect) the next edition to allow them to continue where they left off... which was pretty hard in 4e. People want their favorite monsters in the Monster Manual (or at least a campaign accesory), and not to have to build 'em from scratch because somebody at R&D decided to eliminate them and re-use the name for something else!

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno if you can define a thing so stridently based on your own experiences. It'd be like me getting a bad steak and saying "Steak seems tough, chewy, charred, and generaly disgusting in my experience, so I imagine that those who like it must enjoy such things, and this is not something I enjoy."

I much prefer comparing best to best. PS at its best is pretty much the opposite of preserving the status quo. In fact, I don't know of many settings where I'd describe "preserving the status quo" to be something that the best experiences of those settings have to offer. Maybe FR and Greyhawk? (don't have a whole lot of experience with either) Maybe the Nentir Vale (in that heroism is in preserving the world from an existential threat)? Certainly not DL, or PS, or DS...

I much prefer comparing typical to typical, as any setting at its 'best' only comes in brief glimpses, whereas a setting at its typical provides a more realistic expectation. Wanting to compare a setting at its best seems to result in perpetually moving the goalposts. "Yes, but if you had a better DM/adventure/campaign/etc., then you would have experienced X, Y, and Z." For most people, I would wager, Planescape at its best (and most familiar) equates to Planescape: Torment even more so than the tabletop modules themselves.

Now it seems to me that with Planescape, even for all the mutability that people claim exists among the planes, fiends, and automobiles, the planes still remain mostly as they are. So too exists the Lady of Pain. So too exist the Factions. So too exists the City of Doors as it continues to operate as the center of universe. The Blood War persists. Sure, such things could be said for other settings too, but often the tension is on a much smaller scale with the effects being more apparent on the ground-level: e.g. the threat of a Dragon King in Athas or renewed war breaking out among the Five Kingdoms of Eberron.

 

[Shemeska]

I also find that Planescape makes a big deal of secret backstory (eg the yugoloth stuff that [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] and others love) and quirks like angels and demons drinking together (and perhaps falling in love) in Sigil, the Great Modron March, etc.

That's not quite so much a Planescape thing universally as it is a yugoloth thing. While other planes and planar races have ancient primordial backstory, it's not secret so much as just poorly known (predating mortal life will tend to make your origins obscure). The 'loths on the other hand were secret-mongers, puppet masters, fastidious record-keeping truth-obsessed liars that presented themselves as planar mercenaries with no agenda other than greed and self-interest.

That's also a me thing. I absolutely adore the kind of games that can develop from elements of secret history and the interwoven bits of myth, lies, belief, and unreliable narration that can grow up around such things. It's a thing that you find in fiction, be it Lovecraft or more modern authors like F. Paul Wilson using similar elements in their own work. I latched onto the 'loths in Planescape as a favorite element partially because of that aspect of them (McComb, Vallese, and others made the 'loths complex and wonderful creatures to use IMO, and I'm still inspired by how they went about describing them).

My own work has picked up on 'loth style secret history if you look at Pathfinder's daemons for instance. While the Four Horsemen rule their race, they supposedly displaced a singular original leader who they then scrubbed from history as best they could, because while they siphoned its power for themselves, they couldn't actually kill it, and oh they tried. But the story got out, or at least some of the truth about the Oinodaemon aka The Bound Prince aka it might be dead/it might be imprisoned/it might be playing the archdaemons like puppets/it might all be a myth to be presented as a giant bugaboo to keep the rest of the multiverse from extinguishing the soul-eating daemons as an existential threat because removing their leaders might wake up something even worse. That's ultimately for DMs to decide for their own games, but I like to present a rich field of options rather than a singular history for such things.

I pull this stuff in my own campaigns as a well. Currently I'm running a Planescape-inspired Pathfinder planar campaign set in Galisemni the City of the Celestial and the Damned, a planar city drifting within the chaos of the Maelstrom (Pathfinder's CN plane). Like Sigil, nobody knows where it came from, its history largely vanishes past a few tens of thousands of years before the present, and where history is vague, legend fills the gap. There's no Lady of Pain, but seven gigantic statues of keketar proteans referred to as The Watching 7. People don't get mazed or flayed, but if the city is threatened or someone gains too much power or the city becomes too stable and static... probability starts turning against you. You might slip and snap your neck, you might stutter and mispronounce a spell and somehow summon a balor rather than a dretch, etc. It happens and while nobody has any proof, it's presumed that the 7 are responsible, whatever they are, however they got there, etc. I presented the following as an intro bit of flavor text for the players' guide that I gave my players about the city:

“They gathered together, secure in their wisdom and calling together their allies to undertake the greatest act of creation the Maelstrom could know. They forged the gates and pierced the fabric of the cosmos, and in their hubris they either created the Abyss or found it already there as a reality distinct from their own. Either way being true, they had forged a bridge between them, infecting our reality with evil for the first time, and weakening the Maelstrom such that eventually, other concepts alien to the Cerulean Void would either emerge from it or themselves enter in from somewhere beyond. Galisemni was the seat of their power. Galisemni was their throne and the capstone of the gates. This is why the proteans dare not assault the Drifting City: they dare not burst the scar that formed in the wound between realities that the mad keketars, 7 in all, caused. The 7 are still here. Solidified, petrified, doomed to witness creation’s beauty but never again take part in it.” – statement by a madman to a crowd below the 1st Watcher in the courtyard of the Gate of the Mortal and Material. He died minutes later, set on fire by a falling lantern and burned to death. Attempts to extinguish the fire proved bizarrely ineffectual.

That said, I'm not sure that I've ever run a classical Planescape campaign with all of its original 2e tropes. I've always plucked out particular elements and run with them (the 'loths, secret history, the planes as places of wonder and paradox rather than high-level dungeons, belief shaping reality, etc), and being post-Faction War the factions never came into play and I made up for that I suppose with some absolutely byzantine fiendish politics (not just the 'loths, but diabolic and abyssal prehistory as well). Planescape just provided a spectacular base for the weird direction that I ran off with it in, and clearly it can support a wide array of games and play-styles once you realize that you can damn well change whatever you want in your own campaign (I certainly did).

 

[Aldarc]

That said, I'm not sure that I've ever run a classical Planescape campaign with all of its original 2e tropes. I've always plucked out particular elements and run with them (the 'loths, secret history, the planes as places of wonder and paradox rather than high-level dungeons, belief shaping reality, etc), and being post-Faction War the factions never came into play and I made up for that I suppose with some absolutely byzantine fiendish politics (not just the 'loths, but diabolic and abyssal prehistory as well). Planescape just provided a spectacular base for the weird direction that I ran off with it in, and clearly it can support a wide array of games and play-styles once you realize that you can damn well change whatever you want in your own campaign (I certainly did).

If planar canon is so important for Planescape, what makes for an acceptable change versus an unacceptable change?