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

[I'm A Banana]

You may not be surprised that I agree strongly with what you say here.

I will add: my personal preferences in RPGing mean that I think a setting which tends to weigh against change is a problem; because it creates an obstacle to player protagonism via their PCs.

This is also why, though I like many of the tropes of Dark Sun and admire the way that the 4e mechanics are put into service to make the setting work, I am not sure that I actually want to use it for roleplaying.

Having actually played PS and 4e Dark Sun, I can say that there is little in either setting that could be conceived as something that will "weigh against change."

Planescape is a setting where reality re-shapes itself according to the power of the ideas the player characters wield, where the PC's define the cosmos.

Dark Sun in 4e at least is a setting in precarious, fragile tension, where the powerful NPC's are stretched thin and reaching the breaking point, just as the world itself is. And I didn't play it in 2e, but a world of dying nature would seem to be ripe for heroes to enter and set things right by restoring the natural order.

Change seems to me to be part and parcel of what the PC's are meant to bring in either setting.

 

[Desdichado]

You may not be surprised that I agree strongly with what you say here.

I will add: my personal preferences in RPGing mean that I think a setting which tends to weigh against change is a problem; because it creates an obstacle to player protagonism via their PCs.

This is also why, though I like many of the tropes of Dark Sun and admire the way that the 4e mechanics are put into service to make the setting work, I am not sure that I actually want to use it for roleplaying.

I'm just curious--is this a philosophical question, or is this relevant in most of your games?

I strongly dislike the nihilistic vibe of Planescape, the whole question of "balance" and all that, sure... but then again, I tend to run much more sword & sorcery style games. Saving the world, or even changing it significantly, isn't really a theme in most of my games, so whether or not its possible is kind of a moot point.

 

[pemerton]

Planescape is a setting where reality re-shapes itself according to the power of the ideas the player characters wield, where the PC's define the cosmos.

This is not at all the vibe I get from the Planescape Adventures I am familiar with. I have used them as sources for more modest vignettes, but find them very railroady as written.

Dark Sun in 4e at least is a setting in precarious, fragile tension, where the powerful NPC's are stretched thin and reaching the breaking point, just as the world itself is. And I didn't play it in 2e, but a world of dying nature would seem to be ripe for heroes to enter and set things right by restoring the natural order.

I can see this, but I'm not sure that I want to play a sand & sandals campaign world where the aim is to make it no longer sand & sandals!

 

[pemerton]

I'm just curious--is this a philosophical question, or is this relevant in most of your games?

For me, it is relevant in the way I run D&D (and D&D-esque, eg Rolemaster) games.

I find that the greatest strength in this sort of fantasy, which tends to be based around broadly-sketched characters and monsters drawing on somewhat stereotyped tropes, is to draw upon mythic history, cosmology etc to drive the game forward. That makes the "mutability" of the setting relevant.

I have some interest in running a more swords & sorcery game, but I would prefer not to use D&D, as I don't think it provides the degree of character definition (or opponent definition) to support a game which changes the focus of striving and change from the external world to the protagonists themselves.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is not at all the vibe I get from the Planescape Adventures I am familiar with. I have used them as sources for more modest vignettes, but find them very railroady as written.

I honestly don't think the the official adventures from PS are generally much good. They were written during the 2e heyday of railroady PC-spectator plots, and they don't reflect the core values of the setting as stated in the setting products very well in most instances. There's a few really notable exceptions (Tales from the Inifinite Staircase springs to mind), but 2e PS adventures, like 2e Dragonlance adventures or most 2e adventures in any setting, are more interested in telling you a story that the PC's watch than that the PC's interact with. It's a company-wide 2e phenomenon.

I can see this, but I'm not sure that I want to play a sand & sandals campaign world where the aim is to make it no longer sand & sandals!

Does it matter for play if what happens in the epilogue changes things so dramatically? I mean, a world of dragon-slaying adventurers eventually means they want to make the world free of dragons and danager, right? I think the "Example Party" of the Tyr revolutionaries shows that even a game where you're overthrowing sorcerer-kings doesn't need to lead to a world that is so different. My own DS game has been pretty transformative, with a much bigger scope, but even the presence of a river in Tyr and the return of the gods doesn't mean that there aren't horrors in the desert and evil people in the cities.

 

[Desdichado]

For me, it is relevant in the way I run D&D (and D&D-esque, eg Rolemaster) games.

I find that the greatest strength in this sort of fantasy, which tends to be based around broadly-sketched characters and monsters drawing on somewhat stereotyped tropes, is to draw upon mythic history, cosmology etc to drive the game forward. That makes the "mutability" of the setting relevant.

And yet, few mythic stories had cosmology or world-changing events happen. Ragnarok or the Titanomachy weren't really the day-to-day stories of the mythos. Something like Orpheus or Perseus was relatively epic, yet it didn't really change the world any. Even Beowulf was more of a regional hero than a world-spanning one. He killed a monster or two and saved a small tribal kingdom from their depredation.

I have some interest in running a more swords & sorcery game, but I would prefer not to use D&D, as I don't think it provides the degree of character definition (or opponent definition) to support a game which changes the focus of striving and change from the external world to the protagonists themselves.

This may be straying off topic, but what kind of definition would you look for? For my money, D&D has more character definition than any other game that I play (or am likely to.) Although I wonder if we're referring to different concepts with the term "character definition".

 

[tom.zunder]

I think a good setting for an RPG is important. When RuneQuest dropped Glorantha in RQ3 it lost a lot of its flavour. It's a very light touch in the 5e PHB and adds flavour but you can easily adjust your own recipe.

 

[Steely Dan]

I don't really understand how pointing to 2nd ed AD&D mechanical devices is relevant to what I posted.

Just highlighting that 4th Ed did not implement Dark Sun well, it mostly muddied the integrity of the setting.

 

[Umbran]

And yet, few mythic stories had cosmology or world-changing events happen.

The folks living in Troy or Camelot might disagree with you there. Removal of a major city-state counts as world-changing.

This may be straying off topic, but what kind of definition would you look for? For my money, D&D has more character definition than any other game that I play (or am likely to.) Although I wonder if we're referring to different concepts with the term "character definition".

Harkening back to previous threads - D&D mechanics have a lot of definition of what detailed acts a character can perform, especially in combat. It has little definition of who the character is, their role in society, or the like.

 

[Desdichado]

The folks living in Troy or Camelot might disagree with you there. Removal of a major city-state counts as world-changing.

I don't recall that Beowulf, Perseus or Orpheus was involved with either Troy or Camelot, but the people of Troy or Camelot would clearly be wrong, in this case. A city-state is just that: a city-state, and therefore of concern only regionally at best, to a few thousand people.

There isn't some subjective definition of "the world" that applies here.