Why Planescape?

[der_kluge]

I liked PS because it was unique, and different. But mostly because I could put totally insane, crazy, improbable things in there, and justify it *somehow*. Like, the campaign I ran where the PCs had to track down why all the monkeys were disappearing from the Beastlands, only to discover the Shakespeare was using them to type out all his best stories.

Can't run that game in Forgotten Realms.

 

[EricNoah]

Planescape opened up realms of possibilities that were closed off to me before. It allowed planar adventures without needing high-power uber-characters. And its whole flavor and idea elevated my D&D game to a new level as a DM -- both in terms of preparing adventures (it really helped me think outside the box) and in running the game. A lot of wonderfully flavored tidbits to use and abuse.

 

[Psion]

And this is why I like Planescape - because it is nothing like what you've detailed above.

What he said.


I originally was very leery of Planescape, and didn't dig the "attitude" that they seemed to try to entrain in the game. I especially didn't dig the art. With one or two exceptions (and to PS fans, I doubt I have to emphasize which two), I really don't like DiTerlizzi's art and liked the look of PS much better when rk post started doing work for it. Also, I really didn't dig the ubiquity of the cant, especially not interspersed with mechanics; I much preferred the later books where they saved it for the flavor text.

I started buying Planescape stuff because ever since 1e MotP, I dug the idea of strange other planes, and was looking for material in the same vein.

But I got drawn into it as a campaign setting, for a couple of reasons:

• First, the sheer flexibility of the setting. In many settings, it takes a lot of set up to do anything off-the-wall. New races, new regions, etc., took work to work in logically and consitently.
  But in PS, any idea you had an inkling for, you could do. It was infinetely extensible. At the same time, it had loads of source material for it. You never had to go it alone. This combination of qualities is not one that I have seen for a setting before or since.
• Second, the juxtaposition of high and low fantasy. The outer planes has gods on your doorsteps, and demons saddling up next to you in the bar. But at the same time, it's not high power in the least bit. There is potent magic around, but it's beyond your control most of the time. You won't find magical sewer systems here, usually. The human condition is opressive at times.
• Philosophy. Another clever juxtaposition in the setting is that of philosophy. You are living on the planes which are a living reflection of alignment. Certainly good and bad must be black-and-white, right?
  Wrong. Not only are there well developed and intricate philosophies that are often only tangentially related to the alignments, none of them is clearly right or wrong, and many of them play big roles in the campaign. If the alignment model bugs you, you may find Planescape one of the most intellectually liberating settings out there.
• Fourth, fiends. Demons and devils and daemons/yugoloths have always been my favorite bad guys. Planescape explores the machinions of the nether planes like no other setting, and the are everpresent villains.
• Fifth, great, offbeat adventures. Planescape adventures are rarely the all too common "save our beleaguered village" sort. The adventure seeds are often complex situation resolution of the sort that is all too often absent from D&D. Ever head up a negotiation between an enraged but goodly dragon and industrious formians? Ever helped a fiendish creature infected by goodness realize its true identity? Ever deliver a love note by a love-smitten devil? These are all adventures or adventure seeds from published PS materials.
  Also, two of my favorite D&D adventures of all time are planescape: Dead Gods and Tales of the Infinite Staircase.

In short, if you think PS is just "Advanced Demon Bashing" or that Union is in any way representative of Sigil or PS, you really need to take a deeper look before you dismiss it. I admit that some style elements put me off of it at first, but I am glad I took a deeper look.

It might surprise some of you to know that I was a follower of the Eric Noah site before it was "3e news & reviews." Eric's site in those days had what amounted to a Planescape Story Hour.

 

[Buttercup]

The best thing about Planescape was the PC game Planescape: Torment. IMO, anyway.

Interesting. I was extremely disappointed in that game.

I don't care about the setting, generally, but I'll look carefully at the forthcoming players book to see I can use it as an idea mine. In my previous campaign, the players fell through a portal to a new world, and encountered several other portals that led...somewhere. I wouldn't use that idea in exactly the same way again, but it still has potential.

 

[EricNoah]

It might surprise some of you to know that I was a follower of the Eric Noah site before it was "3e news & reviews." Eric's site in those days had what amounted to a Planescape Story Hour.

Wow, it does indeed surprise me. *Big smile*

See folks, it's all worth it!!

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

The new catalog and the talk about the new Planar Handbook has gotten me thinking.

Personally, I detested Planescape and think that Sigil is silly. There are probably lots of little things that I don't like about it, but the main one is that I think the Prime plane should be at the center of almost any FRPG -- playing Greek titans or gods/demigods or angels might qualify as an exception, but I'd still put most of the action/impact on the Prime.

Anyway, knowing that this is a fairly popular setting, and that many people on these boards who I would consider otherwise reasonable and intelligent really like PS, I thought I'd go ahead and ask:

What is the lure? Why do you like Planescape?

Ever wonder about the existance of an afterlife? Plancescape held the answers to these questions.

Looks like you missed this fairly recent thread started by Wil Upchurch asking why people like planar adventuring. Some really good stuff here. Like any other setting, it's what you make of it:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67331

 

[Arnwyn]

What is the lure? Why do you like Planescape?

I like it simply because it provides more details for the Planes than the 1e (and 3e) Manual of the Planes ever did...

 

[Pants]

Things I liked about PlaneScape:
The planes themselves - I've always been a big fan of the planes and in most cases, I like the mystery and the legends surrounding a lot of the PlaneScape locales.
The Cant - I find it to be fun, nothing wrong with a Cant if it's not overused.

The Bad:
DiTerlizzi's Art - I liked his work in the Monstrous Manual and the MC's, but overall I find his art in the actual PS books to be 'bleh' inducing and completely overrated.
The Idea that All Campaign Worlds are a Part of Planescape - Foolish idea to me. I don't mind players moving from a Campaign World to the Planes but moving between different Campaign Worlds? Ugh.
Fiends as People - Say it with me once. FIENDS ARE NOT PEOPLE!
The Lady of Pain - If there's anything that promotes a DM power trip, it's the Lady of Pain.

 

[der_kluge]

What I didn't like about PS was all the complexity over which spells worked where, and which spells were more powerful here, and weaker there. GAH! That was insane.

I liked that there was so much information, but sometimes it was like information overload, with not *enough* information. I mean, there were all these places, but they'd tie in a bunch of "no one knows", and "it's a mystery" bla bla bla. I can respect that they didn't give all the info, but a *bit* more would have been nice. It got kind of old after awhile.

And I didn't like that the factions were incompatible. I remember starting a campaign like 3 different times after placing huge restrictions over which factions could and could not be allowed. Without those restrictions, the players would all (rightfully so) degenerate into complex philosophical debates and someone would end up pulling a dagger on someone. Not fun. The faction stuff was cool and all, but it just made intra-party rivalry very commonplac. At least that was my experience. And all the Factol/Faction politics in Sigil was way too complicate.

So, in a nutshell I guess I don't really care for Planescape that much, but I really do like the idea of planar campaigning. So, you take the good with the bad, I guess.

 

[Hardhead]

The Bad:
DiTerlizzi's Art - I liked his work in the Monstrous Manual and the MC's, but overall I find his art in the actual PS books to be 'bleh' inducing and completely overrated.

I won't comment, since it's personal preference.

The Idea that All Campaign Worlds are a Part of Planescape - Foolish idea to me. I don't mind players moving from a Campaign World to the Planes but moving between different Campaign Worlds? Ugh.

This wasn't Planescape - this was D&D lore long before Planescape. And Planescape touched on the Primes so rarely, you could ignore it if you wanted. That said, I actually like it.

Fiends as People - Say it with me once. FIENDS ARE NOT PEOPLE![/quote]

Fiends are sooooo much cooler when you take into account their motives, feelings, ambitions, ect. "Fiends as people" is, IMO, one of the coolest things about PS.

The Lady of Pain - If there's anything that promotes a DM power trip, it's the Lady of Pain.

The Lady of Pain was basically a plot device to make sure the PCs didn't conquer Sigil. If a DM had her killing PCs all willy-nilly, he was running her wrong. Remember, the Lady of Pain tolerates a lot of stuff. Theft, battery, murder, even mass murder was left to the "mundane" authorities. As long as you didn't destabilize the entire city, you were OK.