Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[sciborg3]

Thanks for the example and your earlier answer pemerton - apparently I have to spread the XP around before I can give you more!

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
I've read your example before and I like how you adapted on the fly.

Are you saying the difference between" high concept" and "narrativism" is primarily mechanical?

I interpreted your scenario to be faithful to the "raiding the old temple" archetype by having the temple collapse when the ritual was stopped Indiana Jones style.

And you've set up a thematically interesting opportunity with this evil tiefling guide (or whatever adjective is right), which different PCs would have different attitudes toward.

Alignment may be part of that conversation but it seems much less important than (a) evoking a "we've got to get out before the temple buries us" sense of urgency, and (b) having the players wonder/debate what to do with the tiefling.

If there hadn't been a time pressure would you have minion-ized the tiefling?

 

[TarionzCousin]

I'll also admit that I like the idea of the Lady of Pain as an unknowable cipher, but that's because I like mysteries.

Like why this thread is in the 4E forum?

...I'll give the cant a miss, though. BerkBerkBerk.

 

[Mirtek]

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

To be fair, it was also pre-Planescape

 

[Mirtek]

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.

IMHO this was not simulationist but rather narrative.

To me simulationist means that every facet of the world is done through the game rules. Things such as your creating a new rule on the fly are not simulationist to me, in a simulationist game the killing of the tiefling would have been played out by the standard combat rules.

 

[Balesir]

[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.

If I may comment on the second part of this, in parallel with the "spectrum" conversation, for me it's like this:

Particular systems or settings don't prevent any of the "agendas" being pursued - especially if they are modified by "houserules" and so on to fit the playing group's style better (a process called "drifting" on The Forge). So, Narrativist play in PlaneScape would certainly be possible; I would just question whether it would really be supported.

If you intend or desire to develop a dramatic theme, consciously, through play, why would you start out with a theme already writ large over it with the 'questions' predefined? Surely that predefined theme is only going to be a distraction, or get in the way, while the emergent development of themes that you are actually aiming at progresses.

Unless you are going to explore the predetermined issues of the setting, those issues just seem to be superfluous - a distraction from what is actually being attempted. Gamist play in PS hits the same problem; if the idea of belief isn't tied into the game system in some way, it's just a bit of "fluff" that is too complex for its own good.

[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.

Oh, yes - rogue modrons (in a Sim, exploratory sense) are way cool!

To be fair, it was also pre-Planescape

Certainly was - the "Deities and Demigods" and "Legends and Lore" books (1E and 2E) were the "culprits", mainly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

It can also create fascinating tensions with people losing faith, turning their back on their gods and actively opposing them, or any number of other stories (the Unwilling Invoker being a local favourite). With temporary investiture it's easy to tell e.g. when a Paladin has fallen.

Second edition in general didn't 'stat up' gods or dieties, like 3rd and 4th edition.

Out of curiosity, which deities are statted up in fourth edition? The only one that springs to mind is the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (Edit: And demons like Orcus, granted. But no actual Gods). 3rd, yes. I think it had more deities statted up even than first.

 

[Siberys]

Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly. Basically, though, they're always statted at the very far end of the power curve, meaning you'll only ever face one of them and if you do it's probably the campaign's finisher.

 

[Mirtek]

Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly. Basically, though, they're always statted at the very far end of the power curve, meaning you'll only ever face one of them and if you do it's probably the campaign's finisher.

Bane and Moradin have not yet been stated, however their level has been hinted at. E.g. one designer once said that he sees Moradin as a lvl 38 solo and when there were complaints that the dragon article about Bane didn't also have stats for Bane the author said that there would have been no point in using up space for the stats of a lvl 37 solo soldier that no PC could hit on anything but a 20 (however this was before expertise and before the solo-defense-reduction)

 

[pemerton]

Out of curiosity, which deities are statted up in fourth edition? The only one that springs to mind is the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (Edit: And demons like Orcus, granted. But no actual Gods).

Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly.

As I recall, Lolth, Tiamat, Vecna and Torog have all been statted up. Dispater - a quasi-deity? - has also been statted up. And then there's a small host of demons and primordials with stats.

The Plane Above makes a point of not statting up Grumsh, and giving stats for exarchs instead, who were gods in earlier editions - Baghtru, Vaprak, Luthic.