Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[DracoSuave]

I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D. There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape. I mean... modrons?

To be fair, Modrons aren't a Planescape thing per se.

Tho rogue modrons are.

But yeah, planescape is a very self-aware setting that doesn't take D&D too seriously at all.

Dark and Edgy would have you dealing with demons all the time with the abject horror of doing so staring you in the face causing you to doubt yourself and your motivations OH GOD THE ANGST.

Planescape has you deal with the demons, see the abject horror, and then you shrug your shoulders and go 'It's just petitioners. It's what they want' before taking a trip to Ysgard for a drink.

 

[Piratecat]

I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D. There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape. I mean... modrons?

Modrons are entirely 1e and far pre-date Planescape.

Interestingly, I see the setting very differently than you do. For me it overflows with majesty and wonder. It's designed to keep players on their toes and plays well to philosophically-themed adventures, where there's a lot more at stake than treasure. If the players are getting too comfortable with the setting's predictability, I'd argue you're possibly missing some gameplay.

 

[DracoSuave]

Does that help any, to make it clearer?

I really do appreciate your trying to explain it to me, it does help.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Modrons are entirely 1e and far pre-date Planescape.

Interestingly, I see the setting very differently than you do. For me it overflows with majesty and wonder. It's designed to keep players on their toes and plays well to philosophically-themed adventures, where there's a lot more at stake than treasure. If the players are getting too comfortable with the setting's predictability, I'd argue you're possibly missing some gameplay.

I would guess my pithy comment did little to illustrate how I really feel about Planescape. I don't think of it as a "jokey" setting, although it is full to the rafters with jokes (and unlike most settings, the jokes work). But then, so is life. Irony and humor are central to my view of life in general, and are not anathema to wonder at all. At my day job I can wonder at the beauty of what I'm working on, and then have one of them promptly fart in my face. I can be involved in a surgery that elegantly establishes that living beings are fundamentally sacks of meat, and acknowledge that without losing my ability to walk into the next room and be moved by a poetic moment. You need both wonder and humor to properly appreciate the world. And in my line of work, the ability to achieve clinical distance from both at a moment's notice doesn't hurt, either. If you're denying wonder, you're lost, but if you're denying how silly living beings (especially humans) are, you're living in a dream.

The Factions are, in their way, brilliant. Human beings have a strong tendency to laugh at anything they can't quite get their head around. Well, either laugh or try to kill it. Which pretty much describes how the Factions view each other: objects of ridicule or ideas to be destroyed. Planars, after all, have concrete answers to some of mankind's most pressing philosophical questions. But instead of using that information to step past boundaries, they just created a different set. They can see how silly the boundaries and divisions of Primes are (worlds, nations, races, etc), but they are rabidly invested in a different set of boundaries. Those boundaries are probably illusory as well, but a little bit of understanding, as usual, just made people more dangerous. And those boundaries are simultaneously airily philosophical and entirely mercenary and practical. That's human nature in a nutshell. It's simultaneously sad and wonderful. Ridiculous and admirable. To die for an idea, in a place where you have proof that certainty is a mug's game.... That's life. It's also Planescape.

Life (both real life and life on the Planes) is inherently ridiculous. Planescape is comfortable with that without the setting becoming a joke. That was an achievement.

Man.... I think most of that sounds bleaker than I intended. I guess the wonder part really is harder to put into words.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
I see "high concept simulation" and "narrativism" as a spectrum (to use Forge terms I really don't like), not radically opposed. Planescape does have a core concept - belief shapes the multiverse - but within that overarching concept there is a lot of room for a developing narrative based on emergent gameplay. If that feels too confining or too undefined/vague, then Planescape probably isn't a good choice. OTOH if you find richness toward the middle of the spectrum, then Planescape might be appealing.

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION]
If rogue modrons aren't a reason to play Planescape I don't know what is. I mean they're just cute as a button, in an M.C. Escher-esque way.

 

[DracoSuave]

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION]
If rogue modrons aren't a reason to play Planescape I don't know what is. I mean they're just cute as a button, in an M.C. Escher-esque way.

And you only ever roll initiative once. Ever. In your entire adventuring career.

And you get to say things like 'I will be a unique rebel and an individual thinker pending the process of Standard Modron Rogue Form 2234-B/2'

 

[Mirtek]

As for cheapening the gods, the idea that you can level up by hunting monsters and murder them takes away any sense of wonder they ever could have in my opinion.

Which wasn't the idead of Planescape ever. All supplements speaking about the powers were full of how immensely powerful immortals anchored deep in the essence of the planes and able to smite even the most powerful mortals like flies they actually are.

The concept of deities as just bigger monsters was pre- and after-planescape

What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.

That's a problem with how the players chose to play their divine characters. I have an avenger who is from a flagellant order, foregoing any (luxurious) wealth and fame by reminding anybody that he is but a servant to a greater lord and occasionally goes into fights bloodied (has no mechanical benefits that only work while bloodied) if he feels that he failed to serve his deity in the last battle (e.g. his OoE target was one one of the enemies that escaped despite him having sworn to slay him for the glory of his deity)

However IIRC one of the reasons for 4e's "once invested the divine power is yours to do with as you please" was to make all divine characters more of their own men/women rather than glorified servants, since it's "not cool" to be only the servant to anyone.

 

[DracoSuave]

Which wasn't the idead of Planescape ever. All supplements speaking about the power were full of how immensely powerful immortals anchored deep in the essence of the planes and able to smite even the most powerful mortals like flies.

The concept of deities as just bigger monsters was pre- and after-planescape

This.

Second edition in general didn't 'stat up' gods or dieties, like 3rd and 4th edition. The idea was never to go to a power's domain and write him into the dead book. If you went to a power's domain, you were considered a cutter if you managed to give him the laugh. It was acceptable just to get out.

You're more likely to deal with proxies anyways. Proxies were the real threat because they COULD go into Sigil, and they COULD mess with your business.

 

[sciborg3]

Heh, Mirtek, was actually thinking about post-PS D&D when I wrote that line about cheapening the gods!

 

[pemerton]

I see "high concept simulation" and "narrativism" as a spectrum (to use Forge terms I really don't like), not radically opposed.

My instiinct is do disagree with this, but it would be good if you could say a bit more.

The reason for my inclination is to disagree is that I think there is a big difference between (i) the goal of evoking, and remaining faithful to, genre, and (ii) the goal of making a thematically interesting or meaningful statement via play.

A practical example from my game, which has a bit of resemblance to one of Balesir's hypotheticals upthread:

The PCs were investigating a demonic ritual in an old temple. On their way through, they had rescued/captured/joined with (it was a bit ambiguous what verb was appropriate!) a tiefling devil-worshipper, who was in the temple also trying to stop the demonic ritual. The tiefling tried to encouage the PCs to seek diabolic boons for assistance, and one PC in particular was leaning this way, but the wizard PC - who had already been established as very hostile to diabolic forces - spoke strongly against the idea, and in the end prevailed.

After the PCs had stopped the ritual, without diabolic assistance, there was an explosion of chaotic energy that caused the temple to start collapsing. The PCs and the tiefling NPC started fleeing to the entrance. As this was happening, the wizard PC decided to kill the tiefling NPC with a magic missile. Mechanically, this was resolved as an Arcana check to "minionise" the NPC. I (as GM) adjudicated it this way for two reasons: (i) there being no larger combat on foot, there was no point at all insisting on use of the regular combat rules; but (ii) by requiring a skill roll, I created a chance for the other players to have their PCs react to the situation - it wasn't a fait accompli that the player of the wizard would get what he wanted.

The skill check succeeded, and a magic missile killed the NPC. The other players (and their PCs) were shocked. Their conception of the wizard PC changed significantly.​

In high concept simulationist play, the main issues here would be things like the conformity of the wizard PC's conduct with his alignment, linking this to the alignment and metaphysical nature of devils and devil-worshipping, etc. From my perspective - admittedly as someone who is generally not that keen on high concept play (Call of Cthulhu one-shots being an exception) - I see it as mostly about constraints - constraints which, in practice, it is the GM's job to enforce.

As it played out at our table, though, my main job as GM was to work out a mechanical method of adjudicating the wizard player's action which also created space for the other players to get involved, all in a fashion that would permit the players to express their own thematic/evaluative points. I see it as not about constraints on expression, but creating the space to permit expression. As experiences at the gaming table, I find these very different.

But like I said at the start of this post, it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your spectrum idea!