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

[Hussar]

I'm not here to persuade you, just to reply in the unfolding conversation.

I think that there are noticeable thematic differences between FR and GH, although my description of them isn't neutral: FR is essentially polyanna-ish, whereas GH aspires either to a modest degree of seriousness (at least to the level of REH Conan and Kull) or else is just outright silly (Isle of the Ape, Zagyg etc).

As for CoC, I think the mythos is all about theme and trope. Monte Cook and John Tynes do a reasonable job of identifying the tropes in d20 CoC. (I don't have a Chaosium CoC rulebook - they might do this too.) The tropes include cursed families, mysterious books and relics, etc.

And Trail of Cthulhu does a good job, I think, of identifying theme. For example, here is its take on Cthulhu (pp 9):

* The Great Old One Cthulhu dwells in the sunken basalt necropolis of R’lyeh, miles deep at the bottom of the South Pacific. He sleeps eternally while there, sending horrifying dreams to mortal men, tipping some into madness and others into his fanatical worship. Someday R’lyeh will rise again and Cthulhu will wake, freed once more to raven and slay, freed to rule the world.

* Cthulhu is the titanic high priest and ruler of a species of octopoid beings from the star Xoth, who seeped down to earth during the Permian Era and battled the crinoid Elder Things to a standstill. Their civilization on Yhe fell to a cataclysm when the continent sank. Cthulhu cast the spell that preserved his and their life in suspended animation. In this long sleep, he telepathically recruits human cultists to raise his island again by means of unimaginably advanced alien science, which superstitious humans consider magic.

* Varying texts hold that R’lyeh and Yhe may have sunk around 250 million years ago, or with Mu and Lemuria during the first lost age of human sorcery around 200,000 BC. Some of Cthulhu’s powers (or genes) may have survived in the lineage of Kathulos, the skull-faced sorcerer of Atlantis.

* Cthulhu is the chief god of the Deep Ones. He is their “soul-symbol,” and their eons of telepathic worship and biotechnical experimentation have created Him in the flesh. They seek to spread His seed by selectively breeding with humanity.

* Cthulhu is the chief of the Great Old Ones associated with the element of Water, and the fervent rival of his half-brother Hastur, the chief elemental of the Air. His agenda not only includes his own liberation from his prison in R’lyeh but the defeat and diminution of Hastur’s earthly cult. Contrary to the maundering of some cultists, Cthulhu’s telepathic sendings are masked not by the Pacific Ocean, but by the seal carven on R’lyeh’s portals by the Elder Gods.

* Cthulhu is an Outer God, the incarnation of (or a sentient facet of) gravity, one of the four fundamental forces within our space-time.

* Cthulhu is a titanic entity created by the Old Ones for some unguessable purpose. As the Necronomicon says, “Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly.” Their creation draws his energy from long-lensing cosmic alignments vigintillions of years apart, and remains semi-conscious during his dormant phase. They created matrices and other hyper-geometries to limit his activities until their return, and he seeks to evade these restrictions.

* Cthulhu is an infra-dimensional entity that has only a conceptual existence within the human “R-complex,” the brain stem and limbic system left over from our primordial reptilian ancestors. This is why he appears only in dreams, high-stress encounters (such as shipwrecks), and artistic impulses. He is attempting to create a critical mass of believers so that he may “emerge from R’lyeh” and open the eyes of all.

* Cthulhu is a protoplasmic mass of squirming tentacles with an amorphous single-eyed head. An Outer God who has entirely filled his native dimension, R’lyeh, Cthulhu is shapeless and indistinct in our dimension. R’lyeh is tangent to our dimension at a number of hyper-geometric coordinates corresponding to locations on Earth, including Ponape and elsewhere beneath the South Pacific, Peru, Arabia, and off the coast of Massachusetts. The differential in energy between our continuum and R’lyeh creates discontinuities and madness in sentient life, even warping it into morphogenetic “fishlike” or “froglike” forms near the tangent points. This differential also creates unstable vortices at the tangent points, where human sorcerers can tap psychic or magical power.​

The rulebook (p 87)expressly states that it provides

as many contradictory explanations and alternate versions for the Mythos heavyweights as possible. Some of these versions come directly from Lovecraft, others from lesser Mythos authors, and still others from the Call of Cthulhu rules or the perfervid imagination of the present writer. You, the Keeper, can pick and choose among them.​

I think this is consistent with an understanding of setting as being concerned with trope and theme rather than canon details.

Yes, but the point is, there is always Cthulu. Exactly what Cthulu is isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things. The presence of Cthulu is the issue. Additionally the precedes of Elder Gods, Necronomicon, Mu, Lemuria, etc. Strip out all of those references, and you don't really have a Mythos story anymore.

 

[Hussar]

Cue the "None of that is significant enough change to count" brigade that still won't provide a measuring stick for what is "significant enough" to meet their arbitrary line in the sand...

Sigh. If any of that appeared in an OFFICIAL publication, then you'd be entitled to your snark. The fact that none of that will ever, in a million pages of PS material, ever be allowed to happen in anything remotely resembling an official capacity, pretty much proves the point that's being made.

How much work would I have to do to start a campaign at the end point of Viking Basterd's campaign? What help would I get from any published material?

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but the point is, there is always Cthulu. Exactly what Cthulu is isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things. The presence of Cthulu is the issue. Additionally the precedes of Elder Gods, Necronomicon, Mu, Lemuria, etc. Strip out all of those references, and you don't really have a Mythos story anymore.

I agree about references. When I think "canon", though, I think more than just references. I think details of geography, timeline etc. Something like the maps and appendices in LotR.

I also like references (which I think is something we have different tastes on, if I'm recalling upthread correctly). I liked that the 4e stuff included references to ToEE, ToH etc even if I didn't follow up on all of them in my campaign. They are evocative, and are an easy way to create colour.

Whereas I don't really need a world map these day (I've run a 6 year 4e campaign that's currently at 27th level using no more of a world map than the inside cover of the module Night's Dark Terror), and I don't need Tolkien-esque timelines.

 

[Imaro]

Sigh. If any of that appeared in an OFFICIAL publication, then you'd be entitled to your snark. The fact that none of that will ever, in a million pages of PS material, ever be allowed to happen in anything remotely resembling an official capacity, pretty much proves the point that's being made.

How much work would I have to do to start a campaign at the end point of Viking Basterd's campaign? What help would I get from any published material?

Wait what...so is the argument that WotC doesn't publish people's personal Planescape campaign outcomes in official products? Because if so, we've stepped into the realm of setting totally absurd and impossible standards for change to be possible in a setting.

For me the biggest official indicator that significant change was possible in Planescape was Faction War... now we can sit here and hypothesize that some planned future sourcebook would have eventually allowed the factions back into Sigil and (somehow) brought back the factions that were destroyed... but it didn't happen, things weren't officially fixed and that was the end state of Planescape when the setting came to an end. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue this wasn't a significant change to the Planescape setting especially with the uproar and division it caused among Planescape fans.

 

[Mr Fixit]

What is "setting change" anyway? Aren't settings supposed to be canonically "unchanging", i.e. the only big changes being what any given group is willing to do with it in a home campaign? If viewed through these lens, I fail to see how any official setting embraces change. Imposing new canon is a quick way to alienate existing groups who don't appreciate WotC coming in and retooling their campaigns because reasons. Revised Dark Sun, 4e Realms, etc. are pretty telling in this regard. The official settings present a backdrop for campaigns with interesting hooks, themes, and roleplay options. What follows after that is up to us, gamers.

 

[Remathilis]

Sigh. If any of that appeared in an OFFICIAL publication, then you'd be entitled to your snark. The fact that none of that will ever, in a million pages of PS material, ever be allowed to happen in anything remotely resembling an official capacity, pretty much proves the point that's being made.

How much work would I have to do to start a campaign at the end point of Viking Basterd's campaign? What help would I get from any published material?

Why is that a bad thing?

Look how many people hate "living" settings and the update train via novels and supplements. How many hated the Time of Troubles, Grand Conjunction, Greyhawk Wars, Spellplague, or Faction War? Can you imagine the fervour that having the demons win the Blood War and conquer Hell would do? Or losing Acheron into Mechanus, or COMPLETELY removing the planes of chaos? You might as well nuke Greyhawk City from orbit using the barrier peaks spacecraft.

 

[Viking Bastard]

That sounds like a good campaign! That idea of imbalancing is not a vibe I've ever got from Planescape materials myself, but it's an interesting take and I like what you did with it.

[--SNIP--]

For me, these are the sorts of things that leap of the 4e page at me, but don't when it comes to Planescape. It's good to hear stories from others who did have that page-leaping experience.

It was a great campaign. Definitely among my top 5.

I don't think PS has "blowing up the multiverse" as a goal. I blew it up, because, well, I tend to do that. I've never run a setting more than once ("setting" not necessarily meaning "world" in this context), so I feel no need to preserve them.

But I think the "Cosmic Stalemate" is pretty explicit and integral to the setting, with the Blood War being the biggest, most obvious, in-your-face example. And I can see how one might see that as static, but I immediately saw a big powder keg, especially coupled with the 'belief-makes-the-world-go-round' mantra and a prepared list of beliefs (or as I see it, "Here are some matches.").

PS maps out the fault lines in this stalemate (although admittedly, often heavily buried in 2e-style overwrought fluff) and gives you a clear idea on how to trigger them ("Change people's ideas about stuff.").

I look at most D&D settings and I have absolutely no idea what to do with them, other than to mine details. I don't know how to "blow up" FR without changing the lore first or add to it/bring in some external force (like, say, every Realms-shaking event has).

For me the biggest official indicator that significant change was possible in Planescape was Faction War... now we can sit here and hypothesize that some planned future sourcebook would have eventually allowed the factions back into Sigil and (somehow) brought back the factions that were destroyed... but it didn't happen, things weren't officially fixed and that was the end state of Planescape when the setting came to an end. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue this wasn't a significant change to the Planescape setting especially with the uproar and division it caused among Planescape fans.

I don't think the Faction War is a good example at all (at least not in the way Pemerton means it, I don't really understand Hussar's stand), not any more than the line-ending-apocalypse-modules of oWoD. Without the factions, you don't really have PS anymore--you just have the Great Wheel, which is really just a string of adventure locales (which is fine for what it is). You loose the setting's character buy-in. It's like Vampire without the clans and the Masquerade.

PS didn't really have much metaplot and I don't think it takes well to it, either. In my mind, metaplot undermines the entire basis of the setting (much like it does for, say, Ravenloft).

Sigh. If any of that appeared in an OFFICIAL publication, then you'd be entitled to your snark. The fact that none of that will ever, in a million pages of PS material, ever be allowed to happen in anything remotely resembling an official capacity, pretty much proves the point that's being made.

It does? That sounds like metaplot. You want metaplot? I was under the impression (from this thread and others) that you hated metaplot. I'm confused.

I may be conflating your opinions with those of others, of course.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think the Faction War is a good example at all (at least not in the way Pemerton means it, I don't really understand Hussar's stand), not any more than the line-ending-apocalypse-modules of oWoD. Without the factions, you don't really have PS anymore--you just have the Great Wheel, which is really just a string of adventure locales (which is fine for what it is). You loose the setting's character buy-in. It's like Vampire without the clans.

PS didn't really have much metaplot and I don't think it takes well to it, either. In my mind, metaplot undermines the entire basis of the setting (much like it does for, say, Ravenloft).

Yeah my issue in following this entire discussion is that the definition of what is meant by "change" as well as the "type" of change doesn't seem to be consistent in this conversation. I'm again unsure what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] actually means by it (especially since I and others see plenty of themes, hooks, etc. for dynamic play in the Planescape setting but because he can't it's a failing of the setting as opposed to a failing on his part, especially since he's never read the campaign materials) or how 4e encapsulates a "dynamic" setting any more than Planescape does (especially if we limit it to a few modules as our primary source of reference)... I guess because it has a codified history? (Of course when talking about his own campaign he mentions how he forsakes world maps and tolkien-like timelines???) I'm also unsure of the line that determines what conflicts provide "dramatic heft" and which conflicts don't since again it seems like an arbitrary distinction based on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s preferences as opposed to a firm line that we can measure against.

I do however agree with your post that what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems to be speaking to is meta-plot and while Faction War is an example of it and as I said split the Planescape community I think perhaps an alternate version of Planescape based of Faction War could focus on the (remaining) factions as renegade organizations fighting to re-establish themselves and their ideals in Sigil and the multiverse. As to my personal preference... well I prefer the original version myself as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Many things can be entertaining. Watching a cartoon can be entertaining. So can watching Casablanca. So can watching Paths of Glory. But the ways in which they generate entertainment are all quite different. Some people get pleasure from reading imaginary atlases and travel guides (typically marketed as RPG setting supplements) but that is a different way again of gaining entertainment.

Yeah, where I fail to follow you is in noting why any of that entertainment is not of real-world value or significance. These all have real-world value, emotional value.

Because you've left out the seductive nature of vampyrs.

I don't really know the setting lore of BW that well, so of course I did. Of course, that seductiveness is still a threat. You know a vampyr in your house is going to put at risk things you value (your wife), just as the Xaositect knows that these Guvners with their shiny metal pals are going to put at risk the things that she values (her beliefs).

But if I understand you, the key difference for you is that the PC in your vampyr example has to choose between conflicting desires, between two things that are incompatible in that scenario (making your wife happy, and making yourself happy). That is, the aesthetic you seek is one of tension, anxiety, and tragedy.

So lets extend the PS example as well, by putting it in the same context. I, of course, left out the nature of Guvners as a trustworthy source of law and order in PS, one of the few groups who can be trusted not to put their personal spin on the rules because the purity of the rules is paramount for them. So as the Xaositect and the Guvners do battle, the city around them is erupting into riots and looting and general anarchy, as the laws here cease to have much meaning in the face of a populace who believes that they are built on a foundation of lies. Your success is leading to very real horror being perpetrated on innocent people. Are you OK with that? Is that a price you're willing to pay for success?

This is the Unity of Rings in action (what you push will come back and push you), and part of my explicit Tier 3 goals: to question what you believe.

This is a choice between conflicting desires (your desire to spread Chaos, and your desire to enjoy the benefits of a functioning city).

It's not as intensely personal as the BW example, because the scope is significantly different, but if the aesthetic you're going for is some tension, anxiety, and tragedy, that hits those notes. It's not incompatible with a more personal realization of that (perhaps you have a husband who goes missing in the chaos! ), but the scope at its most iconic is bigger than that, certainly.

Which is more dramatically compelling: Casablanca, or Star Wars? My view is: if Star Wars makes you cry you're sentimental; if Casablanca doesn't make you cry, you're hard-hearted.

I don't know that one is more dramatically compelling than the other just because one makes you cry more easily. Their aesthetic goals are different, and they use drama to achieve different ends. Casablanca might make you cry unless you're hard-hearted, but if Star Wars doesn't make you smile and cheer a bit, you're numb. That's not because Casablanca is "more dramatically compelling," that's because Casablanca uses its drama in a different way than Star Wars does, for a different purpose. They're BOTH pretty dramatically compelling.

But if you're looking for a particular kind of drama, a particular kind of emotional aesthetic, it may certainly be true that PS doesn't highlight that aesthetic. It is true, for instance, that PS doesn't specifically highlight a character's personal attachment to anything other than their beliefs. This means that it matters more that the vampyr believes something in opposition to you, than it does that the vampyr is attacking your wife, though the attack on your wife might be in the context of that belief (ie, it believes that personal bonds are a sign of weakness and wants to make you strong; you believe otherwise). Motivation is an essential consideration in PS, while in other settings it might just be, "that's what vampyrs do."

Those are real emotional experiences. That's how narrative art works - by inducing real emotion.

That emotion need not be sadness, though. Joy, fear, compassion, familiarity, anxiety, empowerment, delight, amusement...these are no less real, and no less worthy.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] gave the example, upthread, of a Xaositect being confronted by a vengeance-seeking Guvnor. Where is the value conflict? In Casablanca, for instance, we don't get moved (except perhaps to concern or fear) by the fact that Rick clashes with the Germans - we know the Germans are wrong, just as the Xaositect knows the Guvnor is wrong. The Germans, or the Guvnor, are just a procedural obstacle. Although they are motivated by ideas, those ideas carry no weight for the Xaositect PC and therefore (in the context of the game) no weight, I assume, for the player.

The Xaositect may believe the Guvner is wrong, but she also knows that the Guvnor has the power to be right, to make the multiverse conform to their ideals. The stakes are as big as all of reality, because the outcome of this conflict could determine what is true about the world. The value in the conflict of ideas is that success or failure determines which ideas become reality.

Those are certainly not weightless for the player, or for the PC.

Part of the aesthetic that trucks in is empowerment. Like a lot of heroic fantasy games, the ability to enact your will is a big part of the fun in PS. There's also a sense of awe in the scope of your power, in transforming reality at a fundamental level. Not to mention the excitement of fighting against those that would stop you.

What is moving in Casablanca is when Ilsa clashes with Rick - because we care about her and Rick cares about her. What is an example of something from Planescape which would motivate a Xaositect to consider not unleashing chaos upon the multiverse?

The fact that this chaos is going to cause some legitimate disaster.

This is an explicit part of the character arc I present, the part of Questioning Your Belief. It is telegraphed in PS materials with the Unity of Rings, the fact that what you put forth comes around and strikes you, and that the opposite of you is still connected to you.

If the Xaositect achieves their goal, civilizations will collapse, people will die, entire planes will be wiped from the face of the multiverse, decreasing the potential amount of variation in it. The Xaositect themselves will find life less reliable and less secure. They wield plane-shaking power. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.

I don't dispute that this is a typical way of playing D&D. It's not my preferred way, though.

I think this might be a big part of the dialogue, too. PS is designed as a way to play D&D, so it doesn't necessarily focus on your preferred way any more than any other given D&D setting focuses on it (which is to say, they don't, really). Adding the elements you prefer to PS is just as easy as adding them to any other bit of D&D, I imagine.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think PS has "blowing up the multiverse" as a goal.

<snip>

But I think the "Cosmic Stalemate" is pretty explicit and integral to the setting, with the Blood War being the biggest, most obvious, in-your-face example. And I can see how one might see that as static, but I immediately saw a big powder keg, especially coupled with the 'belief-makes-the-world-go-round' mantra and a prepared list of beliefs (or as I see it, "Here are some matches.").

PS maps out the fault lines in this stalemate (although admittedly, often heavily buried in 2e-style overwrought fluff) and gives you a clear idea on how to trigger them ("Change people's ideas about stuff.").

The stalemate I see. It's the "powder keg + matches" that (for me) is novel.

I look at most D&D settings and I have absolutely no idea what to do with them, other than to mine details.

Prior to 4e, I've used them for maps, proper names and historical backstory. The content of play I've injected from elsewhere. With one exception to the above: the last time I GMed Keep on the Borderlands, which is a long time ago now, I used the chaos priest in the Keep to drive the situation forward. So that was a case of using a setting element thematically rather than just for backstory.

4e for me is quite different and I've discussed in this thread, plus numerous others incuding my actual play threads, why I thinks so and how I have used it.

the definition of what is meant by "change" as well as the "type" of change doesn't seem to be consistent in this conversation. I'm again unsure what pemerton actually means by it (especially since ) or how 4e encapsulates a "dynamic" setting any more than Planescape does ()... I guess because it has a codified history? (Of course when talking about his own campaign he mentions how he forsakes world maps and tolkien-like timelines???)

4e doesn't have anything like Tolkien-esque timelines. It has a mythic history involving a Dawn War and the rise and fall of half-a-dozen or so named empires.

I've explained mutliple times why I think 4e has a dynamism that I haven't seen in Planescape, including via explicity comparison to Glorantha: the 4e world is in motion, from creation to a possible Ragnarok (the Dusk War), and the PCs come onto the scene on the eve of impending doom.

Viking Bastard has articulated a quite different set-up for Planescape, and his posts are the first I recall reading (with apologies to [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] if I should be remembering some of his) that explain the Planescape set-up in terms of the potential for dynamic change by subverting a delicately-poised stalemate.

To me, it is obvious how the changes that Viking Bastard describes occurring are different from the return of a demon lord, or the changing of the layers of Arcadia (I can't remember now if it was adding or subtracting), which were the focus of a discussion upthread involving [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].

I don't think the Faction War is a good example at all (at least not in the way Pemerton means it, I don't really understand Hussar's stand)

<snip>

I was under the impression (from this thread and others) that you hated metaplot. I'm confused.

I may be conflating your opinions with those of others, of course.

For my part, what you say here is correct: I don't like metaplot, and pointing to published metaplot changes for a setting is going to turn me off it, if anything. For me, a setting should be ripe to explode in play. As you did in the campaign you described.

I and others see plenty of themes, hooks, etc. for dynamic play in the Planescape setting but because he can't it's a failing of the setting as opposed to a failing on his part, especially since he's never read the campaign materials <snippage> especially if we limit it to a few modules as our primary source of reference

For the record, Planewalkers' Handbook is not a module. It's a setting guide.

And you may see themes, hooks, etc for dynamic play in Planescape, but you haven't given any examples. Viking Bastard and Quickleaf have, and I've responded to those in some recent posts upthread, including explaining what I think they have seen that I haven't, and also what I might be inclined to handle differently from what they have described.