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

[pemerton]

shifting infinities and raising dead demon lords feels pretty effin' big to me. Far-reaching, epic campaigns have certainly been built on smaller. Dragonlance only involved saving one world. Dark Sun's big transformation was only one city.

I don't think you can measure dramatic weight by reference to the number of in-fiction lives, or the scope of the in-fiction geography, at stake.

I don't think there is anything as stirring in Star Wars as when Rick gives the nod to the orchestra to play the Marseillaise, although one is about an evil galactic empire and the other about an evil European one. Part of what makes the scene in Casablance moving (sentimental?) is that Yvonne, who has earlier been flirting with German officers, joins in the patriotic song. The scope of this change is one person, but it matters because the values are real, and the situation in which they are embedded makes it hard to realise all of them at once. (She has sacrificed one thing to realise another.)

I'm not meaning to suggest that you disagree with any of the above (nor agree with it). But maybe it is something like it that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has in mind, in saying that the changes in Planescape ultimately aren't that significant?

 

[Nivenus]

Treants are "lawful" because the Ents in LotR are a force for good (in 4e they are unaligned). In Moldvay Basic, orcs have firmed up as chaotic (and in 4e are CE).

Again, I think you're missing my main point. You've stated that you feel the 4e alignment system and arrangement of the planes were closer to the conception promoted by 1e. My point is that, based on Gygax's own statements (in which he's said the alignment system was based on the moral philosophy of the Elric books) and the way in which D&D's cosmology was constructed over the course of 1e (from an appendix in the PHB, to frequent mentions in monster manuals and Dragon articles, to a sourcebook of its own) that this is, while not perhaps entirely wrong (as I do believe 1e promoted a more "do as you wish" mentality than 2e) not entirely correct either.

I will grant you however, that before the introduction of the good/evil axis came into play the distinction between "law" and "good" or "chaos" and "evil" was somewhat muddled. But it doesn't seem to me there was no distinction (especially since later manuals stipulated specific creatures that were "lawful but evil" or "chaotic but good").

The idea, for instance, that elves would side with ogres against dwaves and hobgoblins in a war of Law vs Chaos is, to my mind, almost too absurd for words. Elves can have some conception of their primeval freedoms, that chafe at the hierarchical order of both dwarves and hobgoblins; but how they can make common cause with ogres who (as CE) are driven by nothing but voracious self-regard?

I think this owes more to racial conflicts than anything else. Orcs hate elves (and vice versa) and hobgoblins hate dwarves (and vice versa). The distaste each group has for the other is hardly ideological, it's basically just pure and simple racial enmity. For the most part, alignment is just a descriptor for non-outsiders: it doesn't have as much significance as it does when we're talking about demons, devils, angels, or what not, because unlike the extra-planar creatures, natural humanoids aren't (at least not to the same degree) hard-coded to be a certain alignment. Demons are literally made of evil and chaos. Archons are literally made of good and law.

The other thing is that I think the importance of the law vs. chaos axis actually was diminished over time, rather than trumped up. The distinction between fiends and celestials certainly seems more important by the time 3e roles around than the distinction between lawful and chaotic creatures, but I can certainly imagine a scenario where slaadi might ally with either demons or eladrin against an army of inevitables.

I don't think there is such a things as "canon" for AD&D 1st ed.

Fair enough. I was under the impression you did think there was such a thing as canon for AD&D 1st edition because you'd said earlier (or at least that's what I understood you to say) that 4e built upon the lore of 1e better than the lore of 2e or 3e did. I was disputing that specific claim. If you did not make that claim, I withdraw my usage of the word "canon."

That being said, 1st edition D&D did carry with it certain assumptions, which you can read into the various different books of the era. I believe the planes of the Great Wheel were one of the assumptions, especially seeing how often they're referenced throughout monster manuals and setting materials (not only does Greyhawk reference them, so does the 1st edition Realms). So again, I think 2nd edition's development of the lore was a very natural outgrowth of what was already there.

I noted this upthread, when I flagged the only appearence of the outer planes in the GH boxed set as being the homes of the deities.

This is simply a consequence of following the DDG format for gods. Nothing turns on these planar details - a GM who ignored them would lose nothing from the Greyhawk experience. (Contrast, say, a GM who ignores Iuz as a presence on Oerth - that would be to lose something from the Greyhawk experience.)

It seems you're splitting hairs here. Gygax-authored articles in Dragon placed the Greyhawk deities among the Great Wheel. In 2e they were still there. In 3e (unlike the FR deities) they were still there. Whether or not the setting "turned" on the fact that the Greyhawk deities were part of the Great Wheel the fact is that, since 1e, they've canonically been a part of it. I don't see why you insist otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

You've stated that you feel the 4e alignment system and arrangement of the planes were closer to the conception promoted by 1e.

The alignment system: 4e, like classic pre-9-alignments D&D, emphasises a struggle between Law and Chaos. The nuances aren't identical - 4e is not really Morcockian, whereas there are approaches to classic D&D that are - but I think it does a better job than 9-point alignment, which for marks part of the bigger tendency towards setting-exploration as a focus of play in and of itself.

The planes are a different matter. I don't think they're more like the AD&D conception, nor less like - I think they fit with AD&D as well as Planescape, probably better (I think certainy better for daemons).

I was under the impression you did think there was such a thing as canon for AD&D 1st edition because you'd said earlier (or at least that's what I understood you to say) that 4e built upon the lore of 1e better than the lore of 2e or 3e did.

I don't think "lore" implies "canon". This was part of my reply to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], disagreeing with him that canon defines a setting (or is all that can define a setting).

Part of the lore of 1st ed AD&D is that orcs and elves hate one another. And that dwarves are at odds with orcs, goblins, hobgoblins and giants. But, unless "canon" simply means "any story element", I don't think this implies canon. There is no canonical reason for these enmities, for instance. (Contrast, say, LotR, where there is.) The GM is expected to do with it what s/he thinks makes sense and is fun.

In AD&D, these story elements are resources, not setting (to deploy Hussar's distinction from upthread).

It seems you're splitting hairs here. Gygax-authored articles in Dragon placed the Greyhawk deities among the Great Wheel. In 2e they were still there. In 3e (unlike the FR deities) they were still there. Whether or not the setting "turned" on the fact that the Greyhawk deities were part of the Great Wheel the fact is that, since 1e, they've canonically been a part of it. I don't see why you insist otherwise.

This is part of what I was trying to get at in my comments upthread about Peter Parker living two decades over the course of five.

There are plenty of Spider-Man comics in which Peer Parker, as a teenager, wears very conventional post-war suits and, when he catches a cab, gets into what is now quite an old-fashioned car. Does this mean that is canon that, today, Peter Parker in a 2014 comic has memories from his teenage years of wearing those suits and catching those cars? Or do we treat that stuff as peripheral detail, a consequence of Spider Man being illustrated serial fiction?

The GH gods being located in the Great Wheel is simply because that's what 1st ed AD&D god stats did. It has no significance, though, for their story role. It's like reading Gygax's wand of polymorphing rhyme in his DMG ("Xot's the word, be a bird!") and worrying about an apparent implication that fantasy mages speak English. The rhyming in English isn't part of the story; it's just a side-effect of the book being written in English. Peter Parker looking like he stepped right out of the 60s isn't part of the story; it's just a side-effect of the comic being illustrated in that period. The GH gods living on the Great Wheel isn't part of the story; it's just a side-effect of being formatted for publication in the template of the time. (Like in 3E they all had to have clerical domains; that doesn't change the story about them, it's just a templating thing.)

A contrasting point about Spider Man - it's harder to take out those college-year memories of Flash coming home from Vietnam and still say you're talkin about the same Peter Parker. That is part of the story; and it's a recurring problem for these decades-long serials. (What war did Xavier fight in again? Korea is getting further and further away in time.)

A contrasting point about Grehyawk - the Suel Pantheon being the gods of the viking barbarians is a part of canon. I don't like it, and as I posted upthread I change it for my game. But as the setting is written, that is a genuine part of the fiction.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think you can measure dramatic weight by reference to the number of in-fiction lives, or the scope of the in-fiction geography, at stake.

I'd basically agree, but the assertion wasn't that the setting lacked dramatic weight (which may or may not be true), it was that the setting never really changed and was always the same.

If we want to talk about personal dramatic stakes, we certainly can, though PS, like most any campaign setting, leaves those pretty open-ended and up to individual players.

 

[Nivenus]

I don't think "lore" implies "canon". This was part of my reply to @Hussar, disagreeing with him that canon defines a setting (or is all that can define a setting).

Fair enough. I'll agree there's wiggle room there.

The GH gods being located in the Great Wheel is simply because that's what 1st ed AD&D god stats did. It has no significance, though, for their story role. It's like reading Gygax's wand of polymorphing rhyme in his DMG ("Xot's the word, be a bird!") and worrying about an apparent implication that fantasy mages speak English. The rhyming in English isn't part of the story; it's just a side-effect of the book being written in English.

I get where you're coming from with this angle but to me those seem like two very different things. The fact that it's written in English is - as you say - just a linguistic convention necessary for intelligibility. That the characters speak English is no more evidenced by the text than Latin American localizations evidence they speak Spanish. The fact that the gods are set among the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel though is an actual bit of worldbuilding, even if it's a relatively minor one. I very much doubt (though I admit I cannot say for certain) that translations of D&D material into other languages has typically resulted in the relocation of Greyhawk's gods.

The Marvel example seems even more removed, especially since (unlike Parker's clothing or the time-sensitive aspects of earlier stories), the Great Wheel has remained relevant to Greyhawk throughout its history.

 

[Mr Fixit]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Go to a Star Trek convention and mention how you like Abram's movies more than the OS. (Here's a hint; run quickly).

Concerning Trek, but pertinent to this discussion as well, it should be noted that taking fan outrage and their delicate sensibilities too seriously isn't always a way to go. Deep Space Nine, for instance, was thought of among many fans as a betrayal of Gene Roddenberry's universe yet is currently widely regarded as the best Trek of them all. Though... those Abrams movies? Yeah, run for the hills! The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica? Probably among the best sci-fi shows of the last 15 years, yet the hatred of the original fans was astounding. Edward James Olmos even received death threats!

The point? It's a difficult road, balancing fan expectations with authors' own ideas of where a creative endeavour should next go. It's tempting yet ill-advised to assume superiority of one viewpoint over the others. Perhaps all of us should be a little bit more accommodating in these matters.

 

[pemerton]

The first part I don't really understand is what you mean by "learning about the setting." You go on to describe three actions that fall under that umbrella for you, the DM reading a description out loud, the players taking some action to provoke the DM to read a description out loud, and the players declaring an action with the GM adjudicating the results. All of these things just sound like playing any RPG to me.

<snip>

Perhaps it is more about "devoting energies" to that as a goal, and it's more a matter of emphasis? But then clearly, goals like breaching a plane, sharing divine energy with people, and gathering a personal cult don't emphasize gaining knowledge about the setting

If they are essentially procedural goals, where the motivation behind doing them is to find out whether or not they can be done, then yes, they are gaining knowledge about the shared fiction.

There is a degree of paradox in gaining knowledge of something by authoring it, but that's why content-generation procedures become very important in this sort of play. One well-known procedure, of course, is strong GM authority, which means that the GM is not exploring but narrating, but the players explore, learning what the GM authors.

The things you describe could be different from setting exploration, but as you present them they don't have that: they don't raise any issues of real-world value/signficance other than curiosity as to how it unfolds.

You also mention "constraints on authorship" and "fidelity" as factors in having PC's declare actions and having DMs resolve them, but as [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] mentioned, there's no goal of setting purity in play, no requirement to remain faithful to some canon, and the PS books are even explicitly written from an "in-universe" perspective to encourage individual groups to vary from the source material where appropriate.

By fidelity I'm not meaning fidelity to external canon (though I'm sure for some groups that's very important) but fidelity to what's gone before.

You see this every time a poster talks about a "living, breathing world" or "the GM should play the NPCs in accordance with what they would sensibly do" or "I have a timeline that dictates how things will unfold if the PCs don't interfere".

Perhaps some contrast would be useful -- what is the opposite of setting exploration? What does a game with zero setting exploration (or a "de-emphasis") look like?

The setting serves another purpose other than satisfying curiosity. I posted an example upthread with reference to Bladerunner.

In RPGing, then, the move from setting exploration as a priority to somethinge else (I'm hesitant to call it the opposite) is using story elements to generate real-world conflicts of value/matters of significance. Luke Crane gives a nice example in the BW rulebook:

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village . . . [then i]f you're hunting a vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim!​

This example, taken literally, trades on a mechanic that BW has and D&D (other than perhaps some 5e backgrounds, depending on how some of the background features are interpreted) doesn't: players building relationships into their PCs as part of character build.

But the same thing can be done in D&D on an informal basis. For instance, at the start of my 4e campaign I instructed each player to specify one object of PC loyalty. On this approach, to some extent the content of the fiction is already known, to the players as well as the GM. The GM's techniques of content-introduction become quite different (eg, as per Luke Crane, the victim will be the wife; or, in an example you've probably seen me use before, if the PC is a paladin of the Raven Queen then the "abandoned" tomb will contain skulking cultists of Orcus, or at least residue of their evil works).

When the focus of play shifts to resolving conflicts where the stakes have real-world heft other than "what happens?" or "will we win?", setting design has a particular role to play: it needs to contain the right material to generate these contracts. This is somewhat table dependent, of course - different people are moved by different things - but the staples on which I tend to fall back are things like loyalty vs betrayal/freedom/transformation; vengeance vs impersonal efficiency; what price to avoid death?; how ruthlessly will you treat your fellow party members to get what you want? (This last one is definitely "handle with care", at least in my experience.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

If they are essentially procedural goals, where the motivation behind doing them is to find out whether or not they can be done, then yes, they are gaining knowledge about the shared fiction.
...
they don't raise any issues of real-world value/signficance other than curiosity as to how it unfolds.

So where we have a different understanding here is that the motivation behind doing these actions is not to find out whether or not they can be done. Rather, the setting's assumption is that these things can be done (and the reason they can be done is because the PCs want to do it, and the players should be aware of this -- belief is power, your belief shapes the multiverse, belief is a key part of character creation because of it, etc.). The motivation to doing them is the same motivation that a PC in a "standard" D&D setting has for going out from the turnip farm and raiding the local mad wizard's ruin: they're the kind of person who responds to such a call to action (for whatever reason). The conflict comes, in large part, from the fact that the antagonists are doing the same.

I'm not entirely sure what "real world value/significance" brings to bear on the topic. I see the real-world value being the same real-world value that any game of D&D brings, which is engagement and entertainment. Again, maybe an example of the alternative would be useful for contrast, because I'm not sure I have a clear picture of what other issues of real-world value and signfiicance, aside from pleasure, result from any particular game of RPGs.

By fidelity I'm not meaning fidelity to external canon (though I'm sure for some groups that's very important) but fidelity to what's gone before.

So internal consistency = a limitation on player authority? Interesting take. I don't know that I'd disagree, but I also don't know that I'd enjoy a game that lacked that limitation (and thus lacked internal consistency).

You see this every time a poster talks about a "living, breathing world" or "the GM should play the NPCs in accordance with what they would sensibly do" or "I have a timeline that dictates how things will unfold if the PCs don't interfere".

I don't see the link between any of those things and a limitation on the player's ability to declare character actions and have the DMs resolve them.

The setting serves another purpose other than satisfying curiosity. I posted an example upthread with reference to Bladerunner.

Looks like I missed that reference, care to encapsulate?

In RPGing, then, the move from setting exploration as a priority to somethinge else (I'm hesitant to call it the opposite) is using story elements to generate real-world conflicts of value/matters of significance. Luke Crane gives a nice example in the BW rulebook:

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village . . . [then i]f you're hunting a vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim!​

This example, taken literally, trades on a mechanic that BW has and D&D (other than perhaps some 5e backgrounds, depending on how some of the background features are interpreted) doesn't: players building relationships into their PCs as part of character build.

And by your criteria, that is different from witnessing the consequences of player actions in the setting? Because it really looks the same from here.

Heavy Setting Exploration:
Player (at some point in play): "To further the beliefs of my Xaositects, I rip a hole in the fabric of the multiverse."
DM (at some other point): "The Guvner looks at you with a mixture of awe and horror, recognizing you as the origin of the breach, as the glistening steel Inevitable strides forth with an earth-shaking INVALID."

Not Really Setting Exploration:
Player (at some point in chargen): "I have a strong connection to my wife in the village."
DM (at some other point): "The vampyr's trail leads right to your doorstep, and you realize, with a sinking sensation, that your wife is sleeping inside..."

Is the above an accurate representation of your case?

If so, can you tell me what you see as the significant difference?

I can see a few minor points of divergence. The latter situation has the player "taking an action" in character creation, rather than in play (in which case, simply adding more explicit goals to character creation would remove/relieve the issue). The proper nouns are a little different ("the multiverse" / "the village"; "Xaositects/Guvners/Inevitables" / "vampyrs"), but I don't imagine you'd begrudge settings different scales and NPC protagonist/antagonist groups. I might be getting your position wrong still, so I don't want to examine it too closely, but this is what I'm coming to understand.

In both cases, we have a player picking something that has some meaning to them (and in the PS example, demonstrating that meaning in play), and the DM then threatening that thing with people who would like to destroy it. In the PS example, it's an ideology, versus the BW example of a spouse about to be Damsel'd, but in both cases it's something that the PC is explicitly or implicitly willing to fight and die to preserve, protect, and advocate for.

But the same thing can be done in D&D on an informal basis. For instance, at the start of my 4e campaign I instructed each player to specify one object of PC loyalty. On this approach, to some extent the content of the fiction is already known, to the players as well as the GM. The GM's techniques of content-introduction become quite different (eg, as per Luke Crane, the victim will be the wife; or, in an example you've probably seen me use before, if the PC is a paladin of the Raven Queen then the "abandoned" tomb will contain skulking cultists of Orcus, or at least residue of their evil works).

...and if one of the PC's is a Xaositects, their antagonists will include Guvners or Mercykillers. And if one of the PC's is a Guvner, their antagonists will include some Xaositects or Bleakers...

When the focus of play shifts to resolving conflicts where the stakes have real-world heft other than "what happens?" or "will we win?", setting design has a particular role to play: it needs to contain the right material to generate these contracts. This is somewhat table dependent, of course - different people are moved by different things - but the staples on which I tend to fall back are things like loyalty vs betrayal/freedom/transformation; vengeance vs impersonal efficiency; what price to avoid death?; how ruthlessly will you treat your fellow party members to get what you want? (This last one is definitely "handle with care", at least in my experience.)

So, like, Harmonium (loyalty) vs. Fated (freedom), Mercykiller (vengeance) vs. Guvner (efficiency), Signer (what price to avoid the end of your world?), and, well, any game where a party of 5 is going to each individually have a stake in transforming reality?

 

[Imaro]

I don't feel that What are you willing to do to make sure your beliefs become tangible and valid across the multiverse, on its own, makes for dramatic conflict. Especially if success is its own validation, then the problems become essentially procedural - eg how do I get more people to side with my team than with that other team?

Which is pretty similar, at least in broad outline, to KM's suggested scenario of recruting divine assistance to fight primordials. Procedural play - if I pull this lever what can I achieve? what levers do I need to pull to get from A to B? - is mostly setting exploration.

I'm going to disagree... mainly based off the examples you cite below because honestly it seems like it's getting more and more difficult to parse exactly what you are trying to convey the difference is...

Contrast Wotan at the end of the Ring Cycle - in order to overcome the bonds in which he ensared himself he has had to relinquish those he most loved (the Volsungs), so that when he meets Siegfried his grandson doesn't know who he is and smashes his spear. And the upshot of Siegfried's endeavours is his own death, and the destruction of the world. So Wotan only gets what he wants by sacrificing everything that he has.

So he's willing to sacrifice everything he has to get what he wants... that sounds like what are you willing to do to get what you want... not seeing the difference you were trying to convey here. is there a reason a story like this couldn't play out in Planescape, because I'm not seeing why it couldn't?

Another example would be the climax of the film Hero: Tony Leung's character, to prove his sincere recognition of the importance of Chinese unification, has to let his beloved kill him.

Ah Hero... one of my top 10 movies and a pretty good example of a person's beliefs shaping the world around them. Replace the importance of Chinese Unification with say the MercyKillers belief in justice and retribution at the expense of all else and you can easily have a story where a character has to allow himself to be executed because an NPC, or even a "monster"is able to make him acknowledge that he has perpetrated an injustice on it, and that's just one example. I have to ask once again why you think this couldn't play out in Planescape?

Not all dramatic conflict has to be so overwrought, although personally I think it makes for good romantic fantasy! But I think dramatic confict does depend upon real values being in at least apparent conflict. (If the appearance of confict is too transparent, or its resolution too simple, then we get stories that are very weak, or sentimental, or otherwise a little inferior. I think 4e tends more in this direction than (for instance) some of the more "serious" indie games, even a fantasy one like Burning Wheel.) For me that is part of what is missing from Planescape, because its whole framework eschews real values, and in many ways the conflict is merely apparent, even obviously so (there is a place for everyone as long as everyone keeps in their place - look at the deva and demon playing darts in Sigil, or the Blood War going on for ever, so the demons and devils never have to question their raison d'etre).

Could you define "real"values, because I think some, maybe even all, of the factions are based around the things human beings think about and care about in the real world every day. The belief in justice and retribution and it's surrounding moral quandaries... whether there really are gods and what the implications of them existing or not existing are (especially when creatures claiming to be them are bestowing powers on individuals), Can perfection be achieved in the world and if so is the destruction of all that is imperfect necessary for this state, is corruption inherent in man and thus inherent in the the laws he makes, and so on...

Even looked at through an ethics of self-realisation, I think Planescape emphasises the procedures of self-creation rather than the prior question of how shoud I choose? It doesn't have the trajectory of history or society to lend content to the options for self-creation. (I'm currently reading an account of the Camus-Sartre breakup that has helped me formulate this thought.)

That could be because Planescape isn't about self-realisation (contrary to your own assertion that it is and then your following assertion that the setting does poorly at it.). Nice tactic though, claim Planescape is about something (again without ever having read the actual setting books) Then claim that it does poorly at what you asserted it was about thus "proving" it's a poor setting...

On another note, remember when I said you were becoming more and more difficult to parse... yeah the above, "It doesn't have the trajectory of history or society..." Just tell me what that means in plain english.

Here's what a quick google search turned up on ethics of self-realisation...

The theory of self-realization is that a life of excellence is based on the actualization of human potentialities. In psychology, this is called "self-development."

This is achieved through one of the following...
1. becoming a well-rounded person, learning and doing a little of everything
2. concentrate on one major interest or talent and build other interests around it
3. people are born with innate purposes, ends, and goals, and excellence is achieved by fulfilling these natural human wants.

In general Planescape's themes aren't concerned with perfecting the individual through one of the tenets of self-realization... they are concerned with shaping the entire multiverse through the actions and beliefs of the individual... it's outside themselves... in fact they don't even have to be a paragon of the ideal they espouse in order to enact it and promote it in the multiverse... so I think you're assertions are once again a little off.

 

[Aldarc]

Right, because we're comparing two things that people like, rather than something that one person likes and another person doesn't like because they've had different experience.

I object to the idea that somehow talking about the setting at its 'best' somehow liberates the comparison from the subjectivity of the subject's bias, that somehow there is an agreed upon 'best.' Because for me a steak at its best is not necessarily what someone else will think is a steak at its best. For them, a steak at my best may be a steak at its mediocre. But I am more interested in a steak at its typical. If I go into a restaurant, sure I want a good steak - as I would in general want to eat good food - but I'm having to weigh that against my expectations for a typical steak, and a typical steak may even be a good steak but it may also be a bad steak, but it's what I should expect at a typical restaurant serving steak.

Feelings aren't something that are debatable. If someone thinks they liked something, then they liked it. They can't be "wrong."

The sword cuts both ways.

In absence of some actual product, I think judging the setting on some hypothetical future possibility is reaching a bit for excuses to dislike it. And hell, even if the factions came back, the other stuff still happened.

Yes, but it strikes me as unresolved cliffhanger as opposed to some great change.

I dunno, man, shifting infinities and raising dead demon lords feels pretty effin' big to me.

But in a setting of shifting planes and demon lords that Scrooge McDuck could swim through like gold? That seems minor to me. For me, it's the illusion of change.

But, look, this isn't a wang-dangle, I'm not trying to prove that the size of this change is somehow "big enough" to pass some arbitrary bar you're setting. You said it was static, I cave a few canonical examples of pretty dang significant change in the campaign, and your only reaction was to dismiss them as not significant enough (which is moving the goalposts if I've ever seen it). If you don't want to like PS, I'm not really trying to convince you -- your feelings aren't wrong. I'm not one to sell bacon to an imam. But I do LOVE bacon, and no matter how much that imam tries to insist that pigs are inherently dirty animals, I am going to continue to love it!

I'd basically agree, but the assertion wasn't that the setting lacked dramatic weight (which may or may not be true), it was that the setting never really changed and was always the same.

If we want to talk about personal dramatic stakes, we certainly can, though PS, like most any campaign setting, leaves those pretty open-ended and up to individual players.

Planescape "changed" but it mostly stays the same, and in the grand scheme of things, those changes don't feel as such. A demon lord comes back? But the endless Blood War continues. Sigil erupts in civil war ending with the expulsion of the factions? The factions come back in a later supplement. That's the illusion of change. That's preserving the status quo! That's not moving goal posts. Hence my earlier statement that "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." But please note that my statement is also not an assertion that there are no changes in the setting, it's preserving the status quo and done so in a way that impacts that little guys. And with the forgotten portion of my original statement in mind that started this whole mess, I don't see how you can suggest your assertion about me below:

Far-reaching, epic campaigns have certainly been built on smaller. Dragonlance only involved saving one world. Dark Sun's big transformation was only one city. You sound kind of like someone who hears about how Harry Potter had a war in his wizarding school and sniffs that it's really pretty insignificant because all it is is one little school in one little secret wizard enclave and it's not like anything of NOTE happened.

So yes, pemerton has the right of it. Dramatic weight has also been a part of this equation.