TheRPGSite

1. It took the majesty and dangerousness and grandeur of the planes and turned them into somewhere that 1st level adventurers can make out just fine in.

2. It turned the planes from archetypal places of sweeping majesty or terror and turned it into a "regular joe" place; the Demons of the lower planes are no longer trying to destroy all life on earth, they're just accountants or whatever; you get the sense that they're just regular folk doing their job, just like the guys on the higher plane are, and its really not an Epic sweeping struggle for the destiny of existence itself anymore. It took the planes and made them mundane.

3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid. The Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment who act according to their alignment, the metaphysical equivalent of having "grown up in the bad part of town".

4. On that note, it treated the Planes like it was the realms or greyhawk, like it was a setting.  It was clearly written by people who either utterly failed to grasp the concept of Myth, or who actively hated said concept and wanted to intentionally deconstruct it.

5. And on that note, it actually misunderstood the "great wheel" to be a literal wheel.

6. Fucking Planescape-lingo and made up words and the whole dungeonpunk style.  Trying to claim that the center of the universe is a place that would be all 90s-comicbook-hip.

7. They made the fucking goddamn modrons annoying little shits, and then focused way too much time on them.

8. Metaplot.

It was, in short, an example to me of everything that was absolutely WRONG about TSR in the mid-late nineties, and an example of everything that was wrong with the influence of the Story-based Gaming movement.

Feel free to add your own reasons.

RPGPundit

Well, damn. I have the misfortune to agree with every single one of your reasons. If any one of them perfectly embodies all the rest, it's the cant. Flashy,  self-consciously pseudo-hip, grating on the nerves.

I'm somewhere in the middle; I always liked Planescape but I agree with many of the points made.

I do, however, think it's cool to have a planar or weird setting for all level characters (including low-level). And I like the dungeonpunk style. I also love the idea of a setting that implies travel as a major feature of the campaign.

The cant embodies all that is wrong with the planes. Keen observation.

Anyhow, other reasons:

The stupid Lady of Pain or whatever. I guess this could go into Metaplot. But that includes "faction war", and a bunch of other crap.

The way everything was shoe-horned into Sigil. Here's all the entire planes! But you'll have to hang around in this city area for most of your career.

Removing the deities as the main motivator of the planar world. The planes were the homes of the gods. Except you never saw one.

The factions were pretty lame in concept. TSR never seemed to be able to figure out if the factions were mainly meant as NPC organizations or organizations that players should belong to. It was a White-Wolfization.

I have no Planescape expertise whatever, just intuitions based on what one reads about it on the innerweb. Your #4 sounds accurate. Subjectively, I liked the art even less than Jeff Easley's. But I bet that, as apparently with the Realms, the initial publications had potential.

I bought a lot of Planescape stuff before I soured on it. The thing that finally got to me the most (besides the cant) was just how small and finite it made the planes seem. Centering everything on Sigil is what created this feeling, in my opinion. We'd been using the planes pretty extensively since sometime in the early 80s, after we got hold of both Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Deities & Demigods. To us, the planes were mind-boggling.

In the Abyss, for example, we'd have evil-soaked jungles that literally were  infinite in size - and that would just be one layer of 666! There was no great war which engulfed all this - it was all too huge. I remember the guy who liked this stuff the most (we all rotated as DMs) running campaigns where we could literally travel so far afield on a layer of the Abyss that we'd be beyond the province of demons. The stuff he threw at us out there was increasingly bizarre, enough so that regular old demons kinda seemed comforting to come back to and fight.

I agree with some of those reasons, but still liked it. To each his own I suppose.

Yeah the weird idiomatic crap was a major turn off for me too.

What also didn't help was that in England the word "berk" was a largely outdated term signifying an amiable, bumbling fool.

The only thing I agree with is #8.

But damn, if that metaplot isn't one helluva stinker.

Quote from: DrewYeah the weird idiomatic crap was a major turn off for me too.

What also didn't help was that in England the word "berk" was a largely outdated term signifying an amiable, bumbling fool.

That's cause the cant wasn't made up whole-cloth like Pundit claims, but was based off archaic English slang.

Actually, Pundit's wrong on a lot of those points, and the others are matters of pure taste. But that's never stopped him before.

It is a weird, cheap, low-brow, anti-intellectual comic-book setting, that took complex myths and made cardboard characters out of them.

Yet I like it just for this reason (in the same way I like Spelljammer and Montes WoD).

#7 and #8 were a real problem, though.

Quote from: Thanatos02That's cause the cant wasn't made up whole-cloth like Pundit claims, but was based off archaic English slang.

Indeed, but it was expressed with very little sense of what contemporary slang was like in the UK at the time, and how certain words were still in limited use. "Berk" sounds every bit as hokey and anachronistic to my ear as "Gee Willickers" would to an American if it were to suddenly become part of Greyhawk's argot.

Quote from: RPGPundit1. It took the majesty and dangerousness and grandeur of the planes and turned them into somewhere that 1st level adventurers can make out just fine in.

:wtfsign:

The planes are a still a place where you can end up very dead very quick. Doubly so for 1st level adventurers. You have to be very careful where you go and who you piss off. The next doorway could be a portal to a demon infested plane.

That sense of dread is, well, awesome.

Quote2. It turned the planes from archetypal places of sweeping majesty or terror and turned it into a "regular joe" place; the Demons of the lower planes are no longer trying to destroy all life on earth, they're just accountants or whatever

Pure hyperbole with no basis is reality. Show me one planescape reference with reference to demon accountants.

Quote3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid.

Oh, the pure irony. We had some post-modernist innovative who came to told us how great it would be if we made Planescape alignmentless. We (the PS mailing list at the time) did not greet him warmly.

QuoteThe Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment

So, the fact that a vrock would rip your face off just as soon as look at you doesn't make him evil?

Try this on for size too: if you really think that's what planescape's about, read the flavor text for the Vaath who encounters a druid who just thinks he's another animal/predator. Planescape acknowledges evil, it doesn't excuse it.

Quote4. On that note, it treated the Planes like it was the realms or greyhawk, like it was a setting.

So you disagree with the premise. Gotcha. Most verifiable thing you've said so far. Utterly subjective, but verifiable.

Quote5. And on that note, it actually misunderstood the "great wheel" to be a literal wheel.

Buh?

Quote6. Fucking Planescape-lingo and made up words and the whole dungeonpunk style.  Trying to claim that the center of the universe is a place that would be all 90s-comicbook-hip.

(shrug) Just a flava, man. But FWIW, it's actually based on RL slang.

Quote7. They made the fucking goddamn modrons annoying little shits, and then focused way too much time on them.

One module? Man, if a module constitutes "too much time", then this is true of any module with a focus or flavor.

Quote8. Metaplot.

If you speak of faction war: I agree. 1/8 ain't bad.

Course, I just ignore Faction War. Too bad that the (extremely limited) 3e PS material acknowledged its existing.

Any setting that puts clothes back on the Lady of Pain has its priorities all screwed up.

Quote from: jrientsAny setting that puts clothes back on the Lady of Pain has its priorities all screwed up.

Meh. She's no Morgan Ironwolf.

;)

Quote from: DrewIndeed, but it was expressed with very little sense of what contemporary slang was like in the UK at the time, and how certain words were still in limited use. "Berk" sounds every bit as hokey and anachronistic to my ear as "Gee Willickers" would to an American if it were to suddenly become part of Greyhawk's argot.

But dude!

Berk:- Noun. An idiot, objectionable person. Derived from the rhyming slang Berkshire Hunt or Berkeley Hunt, meaning 'cunt'.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut dude!

Berk:- Noun. An idiot, objectionable person. Derived from the rhyming slang Berkshire Hunt or Berkeley Hunt, meaning 'cunt'.

All I know is that common usage relegated it to a term fit for beloved cockernee sitcom Only Fools and Horses.

Interesting etymological digging there, though.

Quote from: DrewInteresting etymological digging there, though.

Great innit. Makes reading planescape stuff VASTLY more entertaining, especially knowing merkins aversion to the c-word.

Listen up, Cunts!

:-)

Oh - and I loved planescape. I love that kind of imagination. Its a stain on the species that it wasn't more popular.

Quote from: Erik BoielleGreat innit. Makes reading planescape stuff VASTLY more entertaining, especially knowing merkins aversion to the c-word.

Skarka likes that word. Lots.

Jus sayin'.

I think Planescape works best if you take the approach they took with Planescape: Torment - keep the action rooted firmly in Sigil, and only go to the other planes for brief jaunts (if that). That's the only way to keep the other planes mysterious and interesting and mythic, to my mind.

In fact, the idea of Sigil as being this ivory-tower bubble of philosophers-with-knives who are very slightly out of touch with the mythic realities and epic consequences of the wider Planes is kind of fun, especially if you keep the idea that the philosophies prevailing in Sigil can affect the entire multiverse. The idea of these violent, muddle-headed jerks fighting their stupid fights in the streets of Sigil with only the vaguest idea of the awesome cosmic consequences of their ridiculous dances is kind of appealing.

Quote from: WarthurI think Planescape works best if you take the approach they took with Planescape: Torment - keep the action rooted firmly in Sigil, and only go to the other planes for brief jaunts (if that). That's the only way to keep the other planes mysterious and interesting and mythic, to my mind.

I don't. Sigil's a nice starting point, but my favorite adventures dip deeply into the planes, taking characters to interesting and usual places.

I find the whole idea that "there are these fantastic, cool places out there, but you can't GAME in them, just think about them" to be sort of at odds with my gaming philosophy. Bring on the cool! Take me the tower made of the spine of a god! Take me to a field populated by demons, where the wails of angels staked to trees fill the air with the sounds of eternal torment! Take me to the halls of thunder, where the judged become tormentors! Take me to the depths of acheron, where rust monsters mature into freaking rust dragons.

Just bring on the cool, damnit!

Yes, the cant is "based" on RL slang, in the same way that an american actor in an LA studio who's never been to england but is attempting to speak in a 19th century lower-class british accent, yet doesn't actually want to be bothered to study what that consisted of, so just decides to "wing it" instead sounds like. It sounds obviously contrived, in other words, and a poor approximation of a real slang without actually being one.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Erik BoielleOh - and I loved planescape. I love that kind of imagination. Its a stain on the species that it wasn't more popular.

That's just the point, planescape takes the vastness and limitlessness of the planes and LIMITS it. It demonstrates a GIGANTIC LACK of imagination, by having writers take the fucking realms of the gods and infinite celestial or infernal domains, asking "what would this look like?" and answering "It looks just like any other place does, only with more leather and bad cockney accents!".

It wasn't until 3e and the manual of the planes that we started to restore some sense of grandness to the planes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid. The Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment who act according to their alignment, the metaphysical equivalent of having "grown up in the bad part of town".
RPGPundit

Because as we all know there is only ever absolute good and absolute evil.  Any implication that there are ever shades of grey is clearly a Forge conspiracy to undermine the glorious revolution.:rolleyes:

Quote from: StumpydaveBecause as we all know there is only ever absolute good and absolute evil.  Any implication that there are ever shades of grey is clearly a Forge conspiracy to undermine the glorious revolution.:rolleyes:

No, not at all. You'll notice that in my own FtA! game "good" and "evil" don't even enter into the cut for alignments.

But my point is that the planes are an ARCHETYPAL place full of symbol.  Symbol and archetypes and the heroic journey does not mix well with "shades of grey".  There's certainly a place for "shades of grey", my campaigns tend to be pretty full of them; what there isn't a place for is dogmatic moral-relativism that seeks to deconstruct myth and turn it into the mundane.

RPGPundit

Okay, fair comment.  
(If I was a moustache twirling villain, I'd shake my fist at you.  You and your white hat)

Planescape was good as a stand-alone setting, i.e. pretended it wasn't part of any other D&D setting and was a separate entity. Once you started trying to mesh it with the other D&D settings or actually pretended it really was the Outer Planes of the other established worlds it got lame. I agree with most of the points you made though, but the DungeonPunk thing wasn't bad... again, if you separated it from any of the D&D worlds and pretended it was stand-alone.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, not at all. You'll notice that in my own FtA! game "good" and "evil" don't even enter into the cut for alignments.

But my point is that the planes are an ARCHETYPAL place full of symbol.  Symbol and archetypes and the heroic journey does not mix well with "shades of grey".  There's certainly a place for "shades of grey", my campaigns tend to be pretty full of them; what there isn't a place for is dogmatic moral-relativism that seeks to deconstruct myth and turn it into the mundane.

RPGPundit

I find this all very interesting.  My world (setting) is an elaboration on the Hero's Journey, and attempts to embody what I think you are alluding to as the principals of symbolic coherency.  

I'd be interested to hear how you would (or do) play the Planes so that they carry the weight you are suggesting.

Quote from: GrimJestaPlanescape was good as a stand-alone setting, i.e. pretended it wasn't part of any other D&D setting and was a separate entity. Once you started trying to mesh it with the other D&D settings or actually pretended it really was the Outer Planes of the other established worlds it got lame. I agree with most of the points you made though, but the DungeonPunk thing wasn't bad... again, if you separated it from any of the D&D worlds and pretended it was stand-alone.

-=Grim=-

Well, again, I think a lot of that was just them trying to "shoe-horn" in external elements into a setting that they fit poorly in that should have remained completely unique and separate.  To an extent, you saw a bit of that with Eberron, too, I thought (though nowhere near as bad).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI find the whole idea that "there are these fantastic, cool places out there, but you can't GAME in them, just think about them" to be sort of at odds with my gaming philosophy. Bring on the cool! Take me the tower made of the spine of a god! Take me to a field populated by demons, where the wails of angels staked to trees fill the air with the sounds of eternal torment! Take me to the halls of thunder, where the judged become tormentors! Take me to the depths of acheron, where rust monsters mature into freaking rust dragons.

Just bring on the cool, damnit!

The problem with the cool is that, sooner or later, if you're overexposed to it you just get jaded. My attitude to Planescape is that there's two flavours of cool you can bring out: the "cool" in Sigil, the exciting politics and backstabbing and mad travellers from other parts of the character's main existences, and the "cool" in the outer planes, which should be kept in reserve and brought out when you want to really blow people's socks off. The latter is less effective if you thrust it at the players constantly: you need to give them time to put their socks back on before you blow them off again.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'd be interested to hear how you would (or do) play the Planes so that they carry the weight you are suggesting.

Much like they were presented in the Manual of the Planes; large and archetypal, the kind of place you go to adventure in when you're too cool for anything on the material plane anymore (in other words, getting to the planes is something that should start happening once you've hit high level, and not usually before that); full of utterly hostile environments and overwhelming experiences.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurThe problem with the cool is that, sooner or later, if you're overexposed to it you just get jaded.

That's when it's time to go back to sigil and resume Urban Fantasy mode.

Or, you know, play another game. There's many, many games that I like to hit once in a while that I don't want to play constantly.

I don't want steak or pizza every night, either.

Quote from: RPGPunditMuch like they were presented in the Manual of the Planes; large and archetypal, the kind of place you go to adventure in when you're too cool for anything on the material plane anymore (in other words, getting to the planes is something that should start happening once you've hit high level, and not usually before that); full of utterly hostile environments and overwhelming experiences.

RPGPundit

I suppose so.  But I mean what would they BE like?  How do you fit in the Archetypal aspects?   How do you make it The Realm of the Gods?  

That sort of thing.  That I think is the challenge, and for inspiration I take an absolutely huge amount of drugs.  *Just kidding*   But really, any thoughts on that?   The question in my mind has to do with How you make the setting fit in with the idea of the Mythic Realm.

"I don't like this setting. Therefore, it sucks!"

:rolleyes:

Planescape was the film noir setting of AD&D 2e. It was tremendous at evoking that feeling, and I loved it for it.

I don't know about "myth" (Elric/Corum's planar adventures were not very mythical, but they would be very appropriate for a D&D campaign), but I agree with the rest of Pundit's points, and add a new one:

9) It mostly seemed to attract people who loved only Planescape, hated A/D&D, and wanted to make the latter conform to the former. The result was just like the sickening back-and-forth we see now about
"I dislike about D&D, and it should conform to my expectations instead."
"But you don't like D&D, look, D&D is the game with levels, classes, hit points and Vancian magic and carnivorous gelatine. You hate all of this stuff. Maybe you should try something else if you plainly dislike it so?"
"No, I like D&D. But isn't it time to ditch archaic stuff like levels, classes, hit points and memorisation? That's just nostalgia and rose coloured glasses. What D&D could use is some good social contract rules, and a stunt/action point system."
":suicide:"

Hoo bloo gloo, and so on, except "back then" the same debate featured slightly different points of argument.

Quote from: MelanI don't know about "myth" (Elric/Corum's planar adventures were not very mythical, but they would be very appropriate for a D&D campaign), but I agree with the rest of Pundit's points, and add a new one:

9) It mostly seemed to attract people who loved only Planescape, hated A/D&D, and wanted to make the latter conform to the former. The result was just like the sickening back-and-forth we see now about
"I dislike about D&D, and it should conform to my expectations instead."
"But you don't like D&D, look, D&D is the game with levels, classes, hit points and Vancian magic and carnivorous gelatine. You hate all of this stuff. Maybe you should try something else if you plainly dislike it so?"
"No, I like D&D. But isn't it time to ditch archaic stuff like levels, classes, hit points and memorisation? That's just nostalgia and rose coloured glasses. What D&D could use is some good social contract rules, and a stunt/action point system."
":suicide:"

Hoo bloo gloo, and so on, except "back then" the same debate featured slightly different points of argument.

Almost reminds a person of certain 4e discussions of late . . . ;)

Yeah, but back then, they were talking about White Wolf things instead of social contracts and APs.

My own planes would look like a blend of the following sources:

1. The "Paladin in hell" image in the old AD&D manual; its the most classic and ideal image of what the abyssal realms should look like from the point of view of the PCs.

2. Moorcocks' Elric stories where he travels through the planes, for the more "alternate material planes" type of things and the more survivable areas.

3. The wilder parts of Zelazny's Amber.

It should be big, immense, and very menacing; you should have to have some serious magic to be able to get there, and some really serious power to be able to even survive there for any length of time.

RPGPundit

I think then the problem isn't with Planescape as a setting, but rather that it was sold to you as "the Planes" and your interpretation of the setting differing from the guys that wrote it.

I find those a good model (except Zelazny, whose works I do not know), but add others, such as C. L. Moore's hellscapes, various Dying Earth stories by Vance, and of course some old D&D modules (Rob Kuntz's Maze of Zayene series). They do not have to be high-level places either - just unusual.

Quote from: StumpydaveI think then the problem isn't with Planescape as a setting, but rather that it was sold to you as "the Planes" and your interpretation of the setting differing from the guys that wrote it.

Planescape was a lot like a Superman movie where Superman can shoot sticky strands of spiderweb from his fingertips, wears a red-and-blue costume with spidery patterns, and works as a reporter for a city newspaper.

Quote from: MelanI find those a good model (except Zelazny, whose works I do not know), but add others, such as C. L. Moore's hellscapes, various Dying Earth stories by Vance, and of course some old D&D modules (Rob Kuntz's Maze of Zayene series). They do not have to be high-level places either - just unusual.

Yes, of course I should have added that my 4th influence are the pre-planescape D&D modules that dealt with the Planes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat's when it's time to go back to sigil and resume Urban Fantasy mode.

*blinks*

Precisely what, in my previous posts, suggested to you that that wasn't precisely what I was saying?

Quote from: MelanYeah, but back then, they were talking about White Wolf things instead of social contracts and APs.

Don't stunt points/action points come from Exalted?

Has anyone ever said what the Lady of Pain really was? Was she a parody of Lorraine Williams?

Quote from: WarthurDon't stunt points/action points come from Exalted?

Exalted simply awards between one and three bonus dice for imaginative descriptions and making use of the scenery, so it's probably not quite the same.

Quote from: MelanYeah, but back then, they were talking about White Wolf things instead of social contracts and APs.

One of the guys who maintained one of the big offficial/non-official Planescape pages was a big D&D hater.

One of the guys who maintained the official/non-official Darksun material was also a big D&D hater.

Both of them eventually become forgies; Zak Arnston and the other guy I only know his LJ name: greyorm.

I think it's fair to note that lots of people who love D&D spend a lot of time making it more suitable to their specific tastes.

Quote from: jrientsI think it's fair to note that lots of people who love D&D spend a lot of time making it more suitable to their specific tastes.

Agreed.  

Also, I really miss the wide range of settings that were produced by TSR/WOTC during the AD&D 2nd Edition era.  I liked that both traditional and non-traditional setting material was available, even ones I personally didn't care as much for.

Quote from: RezendevousAgreed.  

Also, I really miss the wide range of settings that were produced by TSR/WOTC during the AD&D 2nd Edition era.  I liked that both traditional and non-traditional setting material was available, even ones I personally didn't care as much for.

That's true, but let's not forget that this wild proliferation of campaign settings turned out to be one of the nails in TSR's coffin. There's probably just as wide a range of settings - if not wider - available for 3.X these days, thanks to the OGL letting multiple publishers get in on the act.

That's, imo, one of the great strengths of OGL in D&D; being able to get that proliferation (theoretically) without making a single organization do the work. The profit smaller settings generate might be enough to justify the effort for small press or hobby gamers, but would create too much overhead for Wizards.

And if they fail, well, Wizards doesn't take the hit. Not that I care, personally, about the company, but I want to continue to see D&D material come out of them.

As a side note, I love Planescape with the heat of a thousand suns. Not all of it, but the bits I dig are terrific to me.

Quote from: WarthurThat's true, but let's not forget that this wild proliferation of campaign settings turned out to be one of the nails in TSR's coffin. There's probably just as wide a range of settings - if not wider - available for 3.X these days, thanks to the OGL letting multiple publishers get in on the act.

Oh yes, I know it was bad business-wise.  But from a gamer perspective, it was great.

As far as settings for 3.x -- it doesn't actually seem that there are that many even if there are, at least not ones that were as extensively supported as TSR's.  Plus, it seems like there aren't as many of the unusual settings (Spelljammer, Planescape, etc.) this time around.  

I'm sure both of these may be more perception than reality, but at the same time most of the OGL content that has been published is more crunch (treasure books, spell books, etc.) than fluffier stuff like settings.

Quote from: RezendevousOh yes, I know it was bad business-wise.  But from a gamer perspective, it was great.

As far as settings for 3.x -- it doesn't actually seem that there are that many even if there are, at least not ones that were as extensively supported as TSR's.  Plus, it seems like there aren't as many of the unusual settings (Spelljammer, Planescape, etc.) this time around.  

I'm sure both of these may be more perception than reality, but at the same time most of the OGL content that has been published is more crunch (treasure books, spell books, etc.) than fluffier stuff like settings.

That's because most of the settings have been paired with extensive houserules and rewrites and sold as seperate games.  

If you look at the D20 market for what it actually is, a whole mess of D&D houserules, there's quite a lot of it floating around, far more than TSR did in the old days.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's because most of the settings have been paired with extensive houserules and rewrites and sold as seperate games.  

If you look at the D20 market for what it actually is, a whole mess of D&D houserules, there's quite a lot of it floating around, far more than TSR did in the old days.

True, though in many cases, the rules were substandard (Oathbound, though I love it as a setting, breaks my heart with some of its rules flubs), and more to the point, it's not so much that I wan't X number of settings, I wanted the good ones they decided to publish.

In the 2e era, they had a lot of settings that never really sold well. PS and Dark Sun always seem to sell better than many of their less successful experiments; I really wondered if with the right team they could make them float. I've always thought it wasn't so much about they wouldn't have been possible as "opportunity cost" forced wizards to other plans.

Economic reality-> (http://home.metrocast.net/~adkohler/smilies/setonfire.gif) <-gamers.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTrue, though in many cases, the rules were substandard (Oathbound, though I love it as a setting, breaks my heart with some of its rules flubs), and more to the point, it's not so much that I wan't X number of settings, I wanted the good ones they decided to publish.

In the 2e era, they had a lot of settings that never really sold well. PS and Dark Sun always seem to sell better than many of their less successful experiments; I really wondered if with the right team they could make them float. I've always thought it wasn't so much about they wouldn't have been possible as "opportunity cost" forced wizards to other plans.

Economic reality-> (http://home.metrocast.net/~adkohler/smilies/setonfire.gif) <-gamers.

I think Planescape was the famous boxset that Wizards later figured out actually cost TSR per sale. But because the unit sales were so good, TSR never noticed (its management being...unreliable at best during that time.)

Quote from: Abyssal MawOne of the guys who maintained one of the big offficial/non-official Planescape pages was a big D&D hater.

One of the guys who maintained the official/non-official Darksun material was also a big D&D hater.

Both of them eventually become forgies; Zak Arnston and the other guy I only know his LJ name: greyorm.

I rest my case. :pundit:

Quote from: LeSquideI think Planescape was the famous boxset that Wizards later figured out actually cost TSR per sale.

Not that I'd ever heard. The product that I heard of that cost TSR for each sale was Encyclopedia Magica (with its Faux Leather cover, bookmarks, etc.)

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's because most of the settings have been paired with extensive houserules and rewrites and sold as seperate games.  

If you look at the D20 market for what it actually is, a whole mess of D&D houserules, there's quite a lot of it floating around, far more than TSR did in the old days.

Exactly. What's more, the stranger the setting, the greater the need for houserules (like the spelljamming rules in Spelljammer), and thus the more it makes sense to just sell it as a separate game.

The really shitty art.

I never warmed to planescape. Didn't really like the cosmology. Preferred the (more infinite, less defined) version in gold box Immortals rules for classic D&D.

I've always admired Planescape because the artwork inspired a D&D different from my Elmoresque or Easleyesque visions.

I like Planescape. Its one of my favorite settings.

 Pundit have some valid points. The one about "making the planes mundane" is very very true. The moment they dissecated each plane, each realm within its own "fauna and flora", its society, etc. they made them like the mundane realm in the corner.  ( the idea of some pal here - dont remember the name - of making the planes like the mythic realms of Glorantha is good, and very fitting in my opinion. )

- - -

  Now, I would add another point to Pundit list - a pont that is, in my view, much more important than all of his (and may upset a LOT of people here):

 - h) system.

  Ad&d (or any d&d by the way) really dont fit the setting at all.

  A setting grounded in abstract themes (belief shapes reality, meaning of the universe, philosophical conflict, post-life questioning, etc. ) with a system grounded in structured-martial-tactical-heroism-and-power-progression. (or in other words, a system that dont promotes/supports the setting main themes. )

  A setting that inspires your imagination, inciting you to be anything you want, the way you want - an undead hero, a god wanting to be mortal again , the clerig of a abstract concept (lust), a modron gone rogue, a cranium rat splinter cell, a signer painter that paints realities...

 ...and a system thats totally about "balance" (!!!), that says you to be pick a "class" - that is nothing more than a martial specialization ( fighter, mage, thief, clerig, monk ), set some "martial" stats (Thacos/BaBs, Armor Class, feats, talents, weapons, etc. ), and you are good to go (gaining XP by the measure of monsters stomped!!!! ).

  WTF???  Planescape is the most archetypical example of bad marriage between setting and system. Or bad design, if you prefer.

Planescape never interested me in the least, in any way. When it came out I took to skipping great chunks of Dragon every month, and eventually stopped subscribing.

-clash

Planescape always struck me as one of the two D&D settings that I might have chosen if I'd continued to run the game after the Eighties, the other being Ravenloft which I did convert to Tri-Stat later on.

The whole "berk"-style arrogance actually destryoed two campaigns and basically ended some gamer relations.
Some people who were "in the know" regarding "the Planes" were so condescending (as characters) to two of my friends and me (we were dabblers in 2e at the time) when they wanted to get us play a Planescape campaign...

We never came around playing with them again, but there´s still birthday parties and such were we gather.

It was really, really annoying and stupid.

All the more as us three noobs (we had played Star Wars and Traveller on a constant basis at the time) were really motivated to experience "real men" dungeons and wanted to explore the Fantasiest Fantasy setting of all time: Forgotten Realms. We thought the 2e Veterans could show us "real men fantasy". But we got Desert of Desolation 1st, and Planescape after that.
What a trainwreck...
All we wanted was THE medieval western european fantasy experience, cause we didn´t have it, being Sci Fi and Wargamers. And all the veterans and NPCs wer CONSTANTLY annoying the shit out of us for being "clueless" and so "Forgotten Realmsy". :rolleyes:

EDIT: And THEM the FR-afficionados explained to us that only the Savage Frontier or the Desert or whatever else non-european was worth adventuring in. They said the european part was boring and not for adventure...*triplerolleyes*
We started playing Harnmaster shortly therafter, what a relief!


Although: I really have come to love some of the Artwork: Some of the maps and Landscapes are alien and open-ended enough to fuel the imagination.

Quote from: silvaWTF???  Planescape is the most archetypical example of bad marriage between setting and system. Or bad design, if you prefer.

Swine much?

Quote from: SettembriniSwine much?

:haw:

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePlanescape was the film noir setting of AD&D 2e. It was tremendous at evoking that feeling, and I loved it for it.

A perfect description.

Regards,
David R

EDIT TO ADD: Dang! I didn't realise the thread had been necroed.

Oh well, at least silva added a new viewpoint to the debate. And my ideas about Planescape have evolved a little since then, so the below reply stands.

Personally, I really like Planescape, although I'm mainly keen on the Planescape presented in the core boxed set and in Planescape: Torment. I think a lot of the supplements (aside from the Factol's Manifesto and In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil) were misguided, and went too far in nailing down all the details of the planes - if you stick to the core box, the Planes can still be epic and mysterious, but then again if you have easy access to them their majesty and mystery is always going to be lessened somewhat.

On the other hand, I agree with a lot of Pundit's points (and I have a couple of points about Maw's). Here goes:

Quote from: RPGPundit1. It took the majesty and dangerousness and grandeur of the planes and turned them into somewhere that 1st level adventurers can make out just fine in.

2. It turned the planes from archetypal places of sweeping majesty or terror and turned it into a "regular joe" place; the Demons of the lower planes are no longer trying to destroy all life on earth, they're just accountants or whatever; you get the sense that they're just regular folk doing their job, just like the guys on the higher plane are, and its really not an Epic sweeping struggle for the destiny of existence itself anymore. It took the planes and made them mundane.

Both of these points, to my mind, underline the essential schizophrenia of the Planescape line. Going from the Realms or Dark Sun or Dragonlance or Greyhawk or Homebrewdia, where the Planes are mythic otherworlds where the gods dwell, to Planescape, where they're, you know, just places, is always going to be horribly jarring. I would never use Planescape as the metaphysic for another campaign world - it lacks the necessary gravitas and mythic basis that it needs to be the Heaven and Hell of a campaign world.

The problem is that the guys at TSR never quite seemed to be on the same page on what Planescape was supposed to be - was it meant to be a complete campaign setting in itself, one where you could start out at 1st level and work your way up, or was it supposed to be something like the Manual of the Planes, a realm for super-high level adventuring? The former attitude seemed to get its way, most of the time, but then the latter kept popping up here and there.

To my mind, Planescape works best if you consider it to be an entirely separate thing from the Planar realms of a standard D&D campaign - oh, the aesthetic is the same, the place names are still there, but it really needs to be treated as its own place, as a separate campaign setting rather than a grand overarching metasetting that contains everything else. The Great Wheel of Planescape acts fundamentally differently from the Great Wheel of Greyhawk or Homebrewdia. I'm rather glad that Wizards moved away from trying to fit every campaign world into the same metaphysic during the 3E days (am I right in thinking that the 3E Realms have an entirely different cosmology from the Great Wheel?), and if I have one concern about the new metaphysic it's that it seems to tie everything into the same cosmology again. I have no interest in transporting characters from Homebrewdia to the Planes, or to the Realms, or to Spelljammer, or whatever. Characters made for the setting in play are always going to be, to me, more interesting than characters ripped forcefully from the context they originally existed in. D&D doesn't need a grand, overarching metasetting.

Quote3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid. The Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment who act according to their alignment, the metaphysical equivalent of having "grown up in the bad part of town".

4. On that note, it treated the Planes like it was the realms or greyhawk, like it was a setting. It was clearly written by people who either utterly failed to grasp the concept of Myth, or who actively hated said concept and wanted to intentionally deconstruct it.

5. And on that note, it actually misunderstood the "great wheel" to be a literal wheel.

Pretty much all of these points arise from the schizophrenia I talk about: All of these things are just fine if Planescape is another campaign setting, but they fall over horribly if you try to use it as a metasetting containing all the different D&D campaign worlds.

Quote6. Fucking Planescape-lingo and made up words and the whole dungeonpunk style. Trying to claim that the center of the universe is a place that would be all 90s-comicbook-hip.

Yeah. Planescape: Torment seemed to get by just fine stripping out almost all of the slang.

Quote7. They made the fucking goddamn modrons annoying little shits, and then focused way too much time on them.

8. Metaplot.

No argument here.

QuoteIt was, in short, an example to me of everything that was absolutely WRONG about TSR in the mid-late nineties, and an example of everything that was wrong with the influence of the Story-based Gaming movement.

I agree that it represents the ultimate error of TSR, but to my mind the biggest problem was TSR's constant attempts to tie all of its campaign settings together (Spelljammer suffered from this too). Planescape was a hip cool setting for the mid-1990s, and there's nothing wrong with that: what's wrong is trying to also incorporate the glorious old settings of the 1970s and 1980s in it too, and trying to set it up so that the Planescape setting was the metaphysic of those settings. Planescape isn't helped much by the inclusion of the Realms or Greyhawk (how often did Planescape PCs really visit the Prime Material Plane anyhow?), and the Realms and Greyhawk really didn't need Sigil.

Onto Maw's points:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe stupid Lady of Pain or whatever. I guess this could go into Metaplot. But that includes "faction war", and a bunch of other crap.

I think it's best if the LoP is kept way way way off-stage and she never actually does much unless people seem about to break Sigil. She's essentially a giant plot device to make sure Sigil is neutral ground, as soon as anyone tries to make her more than that it begins to hurt.

QuoteThe way everything was shoe-horned into Sigil. Here's all the entire planes! But you'll have to hang around in this city area for most of your career.

I actually liked Sigil as a home site. It made a lot of sense to have a well-developed home ground, especially since if you're going on a lot of Planar Jaunts you're often not going to be visiting the same place twice. It gives the players something to care about. "Who cares if this Limbo-city made of Slaad vomit and angel tears gets blown up? There's plenty more Slaadi in the sea." Ah, but there's only one Sigil. (It's kind of like Amber in that way).

QuoteRemoving the deities as the main motivator of the planar world. The planes were the homes of the gods. Except you never saw one.

Again, an artifact of trying to use Planescape as a metasetting for other campaigns.

QuoteThe factions were pretty lame in concept. TSR never seemed to be able to figure out if the factions were mainly meant as NPC organizations or organizations that players should belong to. It was a White-Wolfization.

Yeah, it's notable that in Planescape: Torment the factions are almost entirely delegated to side quests. I found that the Factol's Manifesto did a really good job of making them excellent NPC organisations or PC organisations, depending on the wishes of the GM; it's a shame that the descriptions in the core set were so sparse, and the Manifesto came so late in the product line. It's tainted very slightly by the Faction War metaplot, but that's nigh-trivial to remove.

Quoteswine much ?

hmm... what? :confused:

EDIT:

QuoteI'm mainly keen on the Planescape presented in the core boxed set and in Planescape: Torment. I think a lot of the supplements (aside from the Factol's Manifesto and In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil) were misguided, and went too far in nailing down all the details of the planes

I agree.

This thread was brought back from the dead!

Quote from: RPGPundit3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid. The Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment who act according to their alignment, the metaphysical equivalent of having "grown up in the bad part of town".

I couldn't disagree with you more. The tanar'ri and baatezu became what they are due to their atrocious actions in life. They weren't  just accidentally "born into the wrong part of town." There are reasons why planars and primes, after death, can become petitioners on certain planes and not others.

The tanar'ri and baatezu aren't evil? They're "accountants?" Have you ever read the "Hellbound:The Blood War" boxed set or "Faces of Evil"?

Quote7. They made the fucking goddamn modrons annoying little shits, and then focused way too much time on them.

I didn't care much for them because to me they felt out of place. I agree with you here, but I disagree with you entirely that they were much of a focus on the setting. Just don't stage adventures in Mechanus or take the little buggers out.

Quote8. Metaplot.

To each his own but you didn't HAVE to use Faction War if that is what you are referring to.

QuoteIt was, in short, an example to me of everything that was absolutely WRONG about TSR in the mid-late nineties, and an example of everything that was wrong with the influence of the Story-based Gaming movement.

Nah, you are comparing apples and oranges. The relative failure of Planescape (compared to TSR's more successful settings) just merely reflects the fact that people generally tend to dismiss what is different and weird, in favor of what is familiar.  In the case of Planescape, the other settings were more successful because they were merely manifestations of familiar tried and true Tolkien fantasy tropes. Planescape tried to be  original and different, by tossing out most of that, and paid the price, unfortunately.


The rest of your points seem to be more on personal taste, and all I could do is *shrug.*

Quote from: LancerI couldn't disagree with you more. The tanar'ri and baatezu became what they are due to their atrocious actions in life. They weren't  just accidentally "born into the wrong part of town." There are reasons why planars and primes, after death, can become petitioners on certain planes and not others.

The tanar'ri and baatezu aren't evil? They're "accountants?" Have you ever read the "Hellbound:The Blood War" boxed set or "Faces of Evil"?

To be fair, it's slightly unfair to expect Pundit to have read late-period supplements for a product line he didn't like from the start, especially products which were put out shortly before PS vanished. Hellbound is far and away the rarest (or at least the most expensive to buy second-hand) of the Planescape boxed sets, in my experience.

QuoteTo each his own but you didn't HAVE to use Faction War if that is what you are referring to.

The mild problem is that a few things pointing towards the events of Faction War are seeded in various supplements. But they are easy to take out, and even easier to push towards a different conclusion.

QuoteNah, you are comparing apples and oranges. The relative failure of Planescape (compared to TSR's more successful settings) just merely reflects the fact that people generally tend to dismiss what is different and weird, in favor of what is familiar.  In the case of Planescape, the other settings were more successful because they were merely manifestations of familiar tried and true Tolkien fantasy tropes. Planescape tried to be  original and different, by tossing out most of that, and paid the price, unfortunately.

Counterpoint: Planescape: Torment is a widely-acknowledged classic, a masterpiece of the CRPG genre. Are you really saying that CRPG players are willing to recognise the unacknowledged genius of Planescape while RPGers are blinkered to it?

QuoteCounterpoint: Planescape: Torment is a widely-acknowledged classic, a masterpiece of the CRPG genre. Are you really saying that CRPG players are willing to recognise the unacknowledged genius of Planescape while RPGers are blinkered to it?

Warthur, do you really think Planescape Torment is that popular? I dont know, I feel its more an underdog, than a topdog.

- - -

  About my previous statement of Planescape´s bad design issue (system <> setting):

  Its worth to mention that in Planewalker Handbook there is an mechanic of Belief Points, made to address the issue a bit. Its a bit lame, but is a step in the right direction.

 ps: Thinking better, I think the Unknown Armies system would be much more fitting to Planescape, than D&D. Just link the Adept/Avatar mechanics to the Faction Philsophies, and you have a system that really supports the theme "Belief Shapes Reality".

Quote from: silvaWarthur, do you really think Planescape Torment is that popular? I dont know, I feel its more an underdog, than a topdog.

Pretty much anywhere you go on the internet where CRPGs are discussed, if you raise Planescape: Torment large numbers people will gush about it at great length. It's not attained widespread popularity beyond devoted computer gamers, but the same is true of just about all the various Forgotten Realms-based computer games.

Quote from: silvaWarthur, do you really think Planescape Torment is that popular?

It is widely recognized as one of the finest CRPG efforts among the slightly older games, as it happens, and hearing gamers every now and then actually quote snippets of the dialogue isn't all that uncommon.

Hey, Wikipedia agrees: "The game sold about 400,000 copies, according to game designer Scott Warner, [1] and received almost universal critical praise;[2] it has since become a cult classic. The game was added to Gamespy's 'Hall of Fame' in August 2004,[3] and to Gamespot's 'Greatest Games of All Time' list in October 2005."

Quote from: silvaps: Thinking better, I think the Unknown Armies system would be much more fitting to Planescape, than D&D. Just link the Adept/Avatar mechanics to the Faction Philsophies, and you have a system that really supports the theme "Belief Shapes Reality".

Swine, as predicted.

That was too easy. Nothing's a challenge any more.

Quote from: silvaWarthur, do you really think Planescape Torment is that popular? I dont know, I feel its more an underdog, than a topdog.

Planescape: Torment is a cult classic and for those who have played it, one of the very best (if not the best) roleplaying game ever made.

On CRPG fora polls, Torment regularly beats out (at the very least ties) other great games like Baldur's Gate II and Fallout.
And that's saying something.

Quote from: WarthurCounterpoint: Planescape: Torment is a widely-acknowledged classic, a masterpiece of the CRPG genre. Are you really saying that CRPG players are willing to recognise the unacknowledged genius of Planescape while RPGers are blinkered to it?

This actually proves my point even further.

Warthur, Planescape:Torment is my favorite CRPG of all-time. Even I am willing to admit that despite its critical acclaim, it wasn't exactly a financial success for similar reasons I have made about the setting.

Quote from: silvaI like Planescape. Its one of my favorite settings.

 Pundit have some valid points. The one about "making the planes mundane" is very very true. The moment they dissecated each plane, each realm within its own "fauna and flora", its society, etc. they made them like the mundane realm in the corner.  ( the idea of some pal here - dont remember the name - of making the planes like the mythic realms of Glorantha is good, and very fitting in my opinion. )

- - -

  Now, I would add another point to Pundit list - a pont that is, in my view, much more important than all of his (and may upset a LOT of people here):

 - h) system.

  Ad&d (or any d&d by the way) really dont fit the setting at all.

  A setting grounded in abstract themes (belief shapes reality, meaning of the universe, philosophical conflict, post-life questioning, etc. ) with a system grounded in structured-martial-tactical-heroism-and-power-progression. (or in other words, a system that dont promotes/supports the setting main themes. )

  A setting that inspires your imagination, inciting you to be anything you want, the way you want - an undead hero, a god wanting to be mortal again , the clerig of a abstract concept (lust), a modron gone rogue, a cranium rat splinter cell, a signer painter that paints realities...

 ...and a system thats totally about "balance" (!!!), that says you to be pick a "class" - that is nothing more than a martial specialization ( fighter, mage, thief, clerig, monk ), set some "martial" stats (Thacos/BaBs, Armor Class, feats, talents, weapons, etc. ), and you are good to go (gaining XP by the measure of monsters stomped!!!! ).

  WTF???  Planescape is the most archetypical example of bad marriage between setting and system. Or bad design, if you prefer.

Welcome to theRPGsite, Silva!

Might I ask where you're from?

RPGPundit

Did you guys know that when Dark Sun was winning critical acclaim, Ron was running around the early internets telling everybody how allegedly "TSR stole the setting" from some virgin creator?
That Dark Sun "Rilly was not an AD&D setting, because it´s too good"?

QuoteWelcome to theRPGsite, Silva!
Might I ask where you're from?
RPGPundit

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil... samba, carnaval, mulatas, ipanema beach, maracanã, pelé, romário e ronaldinho, and all that. ;) But I think you may have referred to my background in gaming: - Phantasy Star and Ultima 4 video-games introduced to the name "RPG"; since then, Aventuras Fantasticas and D&D box (here called Heroquest) by 11 years old; Shadowrun and Gurps from 12 on; Vampire sometimes; and by the 20 just frustrated attempts in keeping the hobbie active (my old group scattered). Since then, short attempts in D&D ( Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Planescape), Gurps Transhuman Space, Paranoia, Castle Falkenstein, Unknown Armies, Glorantha Heroquest, and (my last passion)... Pendragon 5th Edition. Thats it. :haw:

- - -

QuoteSwine, as predicted

:confused:  Did I offend you somehow? If I did it, wasnt my intention. Really.

Quote from: silva- -

:confused:  Did I offend you somehow? If I did it, wasnt my intention. Really.

No. I´m sorry for being an asshole.

See, there´s a certain kind of people who field opinions on the internet that are predictable, and are begetting of pretentiousnes. You just pushed some of those buttons. The stuff you said regarding D&D could have been directly copy & pasted from a certain bunch of posters on RPG.Net and some other places that Pundit ingeniously started calling swine.

The only thing mor like them one could have said would have been:
"Planescape is SOO not served by AD&D, it should be run with Exalted."


I won´t go into why this is wrong or why it is offensive. I´ll just say "we" ridicule people like that.

So, to be taken seriously:

Discuss AD&D settings as being made fir AD&D. BTW, Planescape is as D&D as it´s gets, the planar alignment struggle is embeded and has served as springboard for adventure since OD&D (Wilderlands  e. g.). It´s just not done too well in Planescape. But don´t say "Fad of the month" wanker game would be better than AD&D, or that AD&D can´t do XYZ.
That´s just not helping.

Quote from: SettembriniSwine, as predicted.

I played Planescape one shot using FATE, because we all felt that it suits the setting more than Dungeons and Dragons...

But well, thinking that one system fits some setting better than it's original system is inherently swinish am I right...? And actually knowing why I am thinking so is even more swinical...

And playing planescape when you can play dungeon crawl in forgotten reelms is utter swinery in it's own right...

And loving the setting of planescape but disliking Dungeons and Dragons is so ultimate swinerifical swinish swinery that your own swinery colapses into some sort of swinical black hole with so strong swinery that it causes all gamers in one mile diameter automaticaly turn into forgish swines...

... but theres a hope... a pure knight who knows no other than hate to all dark swinical things and is fighting the evil swine...

Please couldn't we  cut this crap about "being swine" allready...

Quote from: FritzsAnd loving the setting of planescape but disliking Dungeons and Dragons is so ultimate swinerifical swinish swinery that your own swinery colapses into some sort of swinical black hole with so strong swinery that it causes all gamers in one mile diameter automaticaly turn into forgish swines...

It´s called being an unoriginal swine, I´d say. It´s not a swine singularity. A swine singularity is more like lying and libel, to make reality match a conspiracy theory, see above.

Quote from: Fritzs... but theres a hope... a pure knight who knows no other than hate to all dark swinical things and is fighting the evil swine...

He called himself the RPG Pundit, and rode in on a keyboard with flaming keys. Haven´t seen him for a while, at least not in a fighting mood.

EDIT: You are one of the guys Alnag fled from?

If you really want to go after some swine, the Planescape computer game ought to be your real target anyway.  I've never seen a greater example of "story over gameplay" in the history of game design.  Even the Final Fantasy games manage better than that.  

If I want to read a book, I'll read a book.  I expect my games to have more actual play involved than the dull excuse for it the game presents, and then deliberately forces you through for the first half hour of gameplay, so that by the time you're done, you'll eat up the oh-so-clever story with a spoon because you're desperate for some actual entertainment.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you really want to go after some swine, the Planescape computer game ought to be your real target anyway.....

If I want to read a book, I'll read a book....

I can't create my own character and guide the story through my own character's actions in a book.

But you got your wish, with decreasing attention spans in gamers in general, and the proliferation of hack n slash Diablo clones, consolized CRPGs and MMORPGs, you may never see a masterpiece like Planescape:Torment again.

Quote from: LancerI can't create my own character and guide the story through my own character's actions in a book.

But you got your wish, with decreasing attention spans in gamers in general, and the proliferation of hack n slash Diablo clones, consolized CRPGs and MMORPGs, you may never see a masterpiece like Planescape:Torment again.

I got to guide my character plenty in Fallout.  And he was actually mine.  Not a silly plot hook for some amateur novelist.  AND I got gameplay that was actually fun and interesting.

Your dichotomy is bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit1. It took the majesty and dangerousness and grandeur of the planes and turned them into somewhere that 1st level adventurers can make out just fine in.

Clearly you never actually ran Planescape.  This is definitively Not True.

Quote2. It turned the planes from archetypal places of sweeping majesty or terror and turned it into a "regular joe" place; the Demons of the lower planes are no longer trying to destroy all life on earth, they're just accountants or whatever; you get the sense that they're just regular folk doing their job, just like the guys on the higher plane are, and its really not an Epic sweeping struggle for the destiny of existence itself anymore. It took the planes and made them mundane.

I refer you to C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters and the concept that, when closely examined, evil turns out to be rather banal.  And mostly composed of mendacious bureaucrats.  

I happen to like this very facet of the setting, as it harkens back to classic fantasy humor like Robert Aspirin's Myth Adventures, and the works of Terry Prachett (especially his collaboration with Neil Gaiman, Good Omens), Douglas Adams

Quote3. It made the planes utterly post-modernist. Everyone is just misunderstood, everyone has a point of view that's valid. The Demons and Devils (sorry, Tanari and Whatevertehfucke) are not creatures of infinite evil, they're just the representatives of their particular alignment who act according to their alignment, the metaphysical equivalent of having "grown up in the bad part of town".

I don't know why you bothered to number this one, as it's really just a continuation of the complaint in #2.

Quote4. On that note, it treated the Planes like it was the realms or greyhawk, like it was a setting.  It was clearly written by people who either utterly failed to grasp the concept of Myth, or who actively hated said concept and wanted to intentionally deconstruct it.

This is still the same complaint from #2!  And of course it treated the planes as a setting, that was the entire point of publishing it!

Quote5. And on that note, it actually misunderstood the "great wheel" to be a literal wheel.

I'm not sure what this means.

Quote6. Fucking Planescape-lingo and made up words and the whole dungeonpunk style.  Trying to claim that the center of the universe is a place that would be all 90s-comicbook-hip.

:rolleyes: The only problem I had with the lingo was my player's unwillingness to make any effort to make use of it, which I think was a real missed opportunity

Quote7. They made the fucking goddamn modrons annoying little shits, and then focused way too much time on them.

Shut your mouth!!!  I LOVE Planescape Modrons.  They made the minor modrons cute and funny -- giving them a role in the game other than "monster that never gets used" --  and the most powerful modrons scary and alien.

Quote8. Metaplot.

Was awesome!!!

I will grant you that Planescape was clearly, and sometimes confusingly (the factions, for example), influenced by the White Wolf Storyteller games, though I thought in many ways Planescape was far superior to anything White Wolf ever put out.  It wasn't Epic Fantasy, but it didn't need to be Epic Fantasy, D&D already had plenty of that.  The single point you make in points #2-4 is essentially true, Planescape was intentionally hip and modern, it did skew the prime material perception of the outer planes as extraordinary, and it did allow players to play characters who grew up surrounded by such constantly amazing things that they became jaded about them.  That's why it had so many fans!

I've never played Planescape.  Flipped through the manual once or twice, but it never appealed to me.  And I think I finally know why.  Pundit seemed to sum up my interpretation.  I.e., nobody understands me typical 90s blather.  I'm sure it appealed to quite a number of folks (obviously), but just not me.  Planar battles were the end all adventures, so-to-speak in D&D.  That's where you took your characters to battle Orcus, or Baal when no other creature was a challenge anymore in the Monster Manual.  It wasn't a whole campain setting from start to finish.


YMMV of course.

I love AD&D, and love Planescape. Strangely enough, I think the system and setting fit together quite nicely. I guess that makes me a bit eccentric. :)

Quote from: LancerThis actually proves my point even further.

Warthur, Planescape:Torment is my favorite CRPG of all-time. Even I am willing to admit that despite its critical acclaim, it wasn't exactly a financial success for similar reasons I have made about the setting.

It wasn't a financial success at the time, but it gets mad praise now, so people can and do recognise the good in weird, non-Tolkien fantasy. And Eberron, which I would argue is in many ways just as off-beat as Dark Sun and Planescape (or at least a similar distance removed from Tolkien) seems to do just fine.

Planescape ain't no Tekumel or Jorune.

QuoteNo. I´m sorry for being an asshole.

No offense taken.

QuoteSee, there´s a certain kind of people who field opinions that...

...I won´t go into why this is wrong or why it is offensive. I´ll just say "we" ridicule people like that.

Well, you must have your reasons. Just keep in mind Im no system fanboy (nor enemyboy), so you can low your guard.

QuoteSo, to be taken seriously:

Discuss AD&D settings as being made fir AD&D. BTW, Planescape is as D&D as it´s gets, the planar alignment struggle is embeded and has served as springboard for adventure since OD&D (Wilderlands e. g.). It´s just not done too well in Planescape. But don´t say "Fad of the month" wanker game would be better than AD&D, or that AD&D can´t do XYZ.

QuoteStrangely enough, I think the system and setting fit together quite nicely. I guess that makes me a bit eccentric.

  I think the point here is: "what do one wants from Planescape?"

  I ask this because the setting is wide enough. If one views the setting as an oportunity for Epic multi-planar adventuring full of plane-crawling, so the default system (AD&D) is perfect in my opinion. But if one views the setting as Sigil-centric heavy in Philosophical-Political-Factional struggles with the theme "Belief Shapes Reality" as central, then I think the original AD&D does little (or nothing) to support this.

  Then again, Im in the group that sees a system as a tool created to a specific task. If one thinks any system can be used for any task - and the resulting experience will be the same - then disconsider all my arguments. ;)

Quote from: WarthurIt wasn't a financial success at the time, but it gets mad praise now, so people can and do recognise the good in weird, non-Tolkien fantasy.

You are confusing popularity/financial success with critical acclaim. They are not the same thing. A game can be critically acclaimed, yet fail to appeal to the mainstream and bomb financially.

Torment got mad praise when it came out, and it still gets mad praise now.

The difference is that Torment doesn't get that mad praise from the mainstream (it never did), but always from a relatively small but vocal cult following.

Successful games like Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic, on the other hand, were not only critically acclaimed, but were titles with a much broader appeal--- As a result, they sold very well..

As much as I don't like to admit it, most mainstream gamers doesn't give a hoot about a game like Planescape:Torment. They would react in a similar fashion to J Arcane and denounce it for being too "story-heavy", "boring," "too much reading", "lacking action," and consisting of "poor gameplay." I have heard it all before. Mainstream gamers (which are a different crowd than certain hardcore gamer types you find on the appropriate forums that can appreciate a game like Torment), prefer Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Icewind Dale and other more action-oriented RPGs. Torment, like the setting itself were both critically acclaimed works, but the niche they appealed to was too small for the average joe/jane to come to appreciate. There are also marketing issues with the cover art but that is an argument for another day..

Still nursing that false dichotomy, eh dickhead?

Where's the "action-oriented" gameplay in the Fallout series?  Hmm?  Or in pre-U7 Ultima?  

See, this is prime Swinism in it's best form, right down to the disdain for some invented stereotype of "mainstream" tastes.

QuoteAs much as I don't like to admit it, most mainstream gamers doesn't give a hoot about a game like Planescape:Torment. They would react in a similar fashion to J Arcane and denounce it for being too "story-heavy", "boring," "too much reading", "lacking action," and consisting of "poor gameplay." I have heard it all before. Mainstream gamers (which are a different crowd than the hardcore gamer types you find on the appropriate forums that can appreciate a game like Torment), prefer Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Icewind Dale and other more action-oriented RPGs. Torment, like the setting itself were both critically acclaimed works, but the niche they appealed to was too small for the average joe/jane to come to appreciate. There are also marketing issues with the cover art but that is an argument for another day..

I think Lancer put it nicely.

Torment is a great game (the better CRPG for me, together with Fallout 2, Ultima 4 & 7, Arcanum and Darklands ), but it do not appeal to the majority of players out there. Thats why I called it underdog.

EDIT: Oh I forgot Deus Ex! hehe

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, this is prime Swinism in it's best form, right down to the disdain for some invented stereotype of "mainstream" tastes.

Wow, aren't we in a great mood!

I am not the one calling people "swine" (and worse) for liking a game like Planescape Torment. Isn't that ALSO a stereotype?

And apparently I have a disdain for mainstream/more popular games now? Yet, the Baldur's Gate series, KotOR, Fallout, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex I count among my favorite CRPGs?

I just recognize that Torment appealed to a much smaller niche than some of the other more popular and still great games(whether or not you do). There is no disdain or shame  in admitting that. The only disdain I have is that I doubt that there will be another game like Planescape Torment.
In a similar fashion, the Planescape setting appealed to fewer people than say Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or even Dark Sun.


EDIT: As for my use of the term "mainstream." It was merely a qualitative term to distinguish something that has a generally broad appeal from something that has more of a small, but (sometimes) rabid following of fans.

Quote from: LancerYou are confusing popularity/financial success with critical acclaim. They are not the same thing. A game can be critically acclaimed, yet fail to appeal to the mainstream and bomb financially.

I would submit that the acclaim for Planescape is pretty damn widespread across the gaming community. I would also submit that (especially pre-World of Warcraft) very few computer RPGs (especially in the vein of Baldur's Gate or Torment) had much appeal to the mainstream.

Quote from: LancerI just recognize that Torment appealed to a much smaller niche than some of the other more popular and still great games(whether or not you do). There is no disdain or shame  in admitting that. The only disdain I have is that I doubt that there will be another game like Planescape Torment.
In a similar fashion, the Planescape setting appealed to fewer people than say Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or even Dark Sun.

You are sliding gracefully past the point I made earlier, but I really do want you to come back and address it.

I would argue that Eberron is around as far from mainstream Tolkien-imitating fantasy as Planescape is, and that Planescape, on balance, isn't that much more esoteric than Eberron. This being the case, why would Eberron succeed where Planescape (and Dark Sun, and Spelljammer) failed?

Is it because the public's attitude changed since then, or is it because Wizards had a better business model than 1990s TSR?

You know what I think the major damper on Planescape's popularity was? The proliferation of boxed sets. You had the core set, you had three for the outer planes, you had one for the Blood War... that represents quite an investment, all things considered. I suspect many gamers were put off by that.

Quote from: WarthurYou are sliding gracefully past the point I made earlier, but I really do want you to come back and address it.

I am not sliding gracefully past anything, I just don't know anything about Eberron to comment on anything you have said about it.

QuoteYou know what I think the major damper on Planescape's popularity was? The proliferation of boxed sets. You had the core set, you had three for the outer planes, you had one for the Blood War... that represents quite an investment, all things considered. I suspect many gamers were put off by that.

Yet Forgotten Realms and Mystara required even larger investments(Mystara and its over a dozen Gazetteers and boxed sets) and both outdid Planescape in popularity.

Really?

Back in the day I seem to recall that everyone knew you only really needed the core FR box or the Poor Wizard's Almanac or a Gazetteer or two to play in FR or Mystara. The same wasn't true of Planescape. People were confused, and many thought you needed four boxed sets - the core box, Planes of Law, Planes of Chaos, and Planes of Balance - to play it (assuming that the three supplemental boxes had the rules required to play in the relevant planes). It's also worth noting that FR and Mystara got rolling back in the 1980s, in the earlier days of TSR when they were still a little more on the ball.

Quote from: WarthurReally?

Back in the day I seem to recall that everyone knew you only really needed the core FR box or the Poor Wizard's Almanac or a Gazetteer or two to play in FR or Mystara. The same wasn't true of Planescape. People were confused, and many thought you needed four boxed sets - the core box, Planes of Law, Planes of Chaos, and Planes of Balance - to play it (assuming that the three supplemental boxes had the rules required to play in the relevant planes). It's also worth noting that FR and Mystara got rolling back in the 1980s, in the earlier days of TSR when they were still a little more on the ball.

The Planescape product line is nothing compared to the others.

All you really needed to play Planescape was the original boxed set and the Planewalker's Handbook. All those other boxed sets certainly would have added to the campaign, but they weren't essential.

Quote from: WarthurPlanescape ain't no Tekumel or Jorune.

Yeah.

These days if I were to run a straight Planescape campaign, instead of looting the setting, I'd use a light system like Broadsword. The setting is complex enough without me having to worry about a crunchy system.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: LancerThe Planescape product line is nothing compared to the others.

All you really needed to play Planescape was the original boxed set and the Planewalker's Handbook. All those other boxed sets certainly would have added to the campaign, but they weren't essential.

That's true, but I think I see Warthur's point: a lot of the Planescape additions were boxed sets, which is psychologically more difficult to justify buying than a regular sourcebook.

Moreover, the core boxed set only gave the planes a cursory glance at best (a page each, if I remember correctly), so while the boxed sets (Planes of Law, Planes of Chaos, Planes of Conflict) weren't necessary, it was quite hard to envisage playing a game not set in Sigil or the Outlands without them.

Quote from: WarthurI would submit that the acclaim for Planescape is pretty damn widespread across the gaming community.

I would agree that Torment's popularity has increased in recent years via "word of mouth"-- thanks to its rabid cult following.
It still doesn't have that widespread popularity that other games like BG or Diablo did.

QuoteI would also submit that (especially pre-World of Warcraft) very few computer RPGs (especially in the vein of Baldur's Gate or Torment) had much appeal to the mainstream.

The BG series were very popular games and I submit that they did flirt with the mainstream (not to Diablo levels but still).
They are far more popular than Torment ever was, as the sales and various console spinoffs have shown. The Dark Alliance series came out years (and sold well) before WoW was even a blip on the radar.

And well, of course there is Diablo.

Quote from: LancerThe Planescape product line is nothing compared to the others.

All you really needed to play Planescape was the original boxed set and the Planewalker's Handbook. All those other boxed sets certainly would have added to the campaign, but they weren't essential.

I know that. You know that. But at the time, it sure didn't look that way to a hell of a lot of people. The actual necessary materials to run a PS campaign and the public perception of how much was needed were two different things. Come on: sure, there's plenty more FR products, but nobody seriously believes you have to buy every single one to play in the Realms. I am aware of plenty of people who believed you needed to buy four boxed sets to play Planescape properly.

Quote from: noismsThat's true, but I think I see Warthur's point: a lot of the Planescape additions were boxed sets, which is psychologically more difficult to justify buying than a regular sourcebook.

I own virtually the entire Planescape product line (and Mystara's) and that just isn't true.

As I have already stated, the basic Planescape boxed set (along with the Planewalker's Handbook) gave you everything you needed to run Planescape. It gave you a run down of all the planes, their characterististics, major denizens,planar transport (portals, keys, color pools..etc), kits, roleplaying your beliefs, the cant, and everything else beyond that was just filler.

As for "a lot of those additions being boxed sets," besides the setting, there were 5 more (Law, Conflict, Chaos, Hellbound, and Player's Primer to the Outlands). In reality, though, there were only 4 more because the information in Player's Primer, was well a Primer that was info all covered in the Planewalker's Handbook and campaign setting.

But the vast majority of the line was actually in the form of book supplements, not boxed sets.. About a dozen or so (not including the modules) and including the Monster Manuals.

Quote from: WarthurI know that. You know that. But at the time, it sure didn't look that way to a hell of a lot of people. The actual necessary materials to run a PS campaign and the public perception of how much was needed were two different things. Come on: sure, there's plenty more FR products, but nobody seriously believes you have to buy every single one to play in the Realms. I am aware of plenty of people who believed you needed to buy four boxed sets to play Planescape properly.

If after buying the original boxed set and the Planewalker's Handbook, some people still didn't know what to do with the setting,and dumped it, I can't speak for them because the basic info really is in those products I mentioned.

In any case, I don't buy it, unless those people you mention  went straight for the "Planes of" boxed sets before reading the campaign setting.

I think you both have valid points.

Warthur is right in the point that Planescape seems less acessible than the other settings, at least comparing the Core Boxes. The Planescape Core Box is very thin on the planes and the factions. It seems more of a introduction than anything else. Sum to this the fact that Planescape is more weird/non-traditional than Forgotten, and you may have a product that really scares people here.

On the other hand, Planewalker Handbook solves most of the issue, sure. But when was it lunched, 1997? Three years after the Core Box (1994) ? Isnt that too much Lancer?
ps: BTW, Lancer, did you ever used the Belief Points mechanic in Planewalker Handbook?

Quote from: silvaI think you both have valid points.

Warthur is right in the point that Planescape seems less acessible than the other settings, at least comparing the Core Boxes. The Planescape Core Box is very thin on the planes and the factions. It seems more of a introduction than anything else. Sum to this the fact that Planescape is more weird/non-traditional than Forgotten, and you may have a product that really scares people here.

On the other hand, Planewalker Handbook solves most of the issue, sure. But when was it lunched, 1997? Three years after the Core Box (1994) ? Isnt that too much Lancer?

Now that you are on the topic of chronological issues...
I have to admit that I came to the Planescape setting later.. Around 1998 or '99. By then, the entire line had been out, including the Planewalker Handbook so I didn't have the problems some people seemed to have.

Seeing from this perspective, perhaps those who discovered Planescape sooner than I did, gave up on it by the time the Planewalker Handbook came out. Perhaps? I admit now it could be possible. At any rate, those folks that gave up on it are surely missing out.

I still don't think though, even if the Planewalker's Handbook had come out sooner, that it would have achieved the popularity level of anything like a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk (or Mystara during the Basic D&D days). Perhaps, more like Spelljammer or Dark Sun maybe.

Quoteps: BTW, Lancer, did you ever used the Belief Points mechanic in Planewalker Handbook?

I have yet to run a full campaign in Planescape. I have spent my time in recent years meshing it fully with my Mystara campaign...When I found  FUZION I had then converted everything over to that. :(
It's also a little difficult to find players willing to play in such a surreal setting..

The Belief Points Mechanic had always intrigued me and I can't wait to use it. Belief really is power on the planes, and the mechanic shows that the adage isn't just lip service.

Aww, I thought the modrons were cute, in a "obey or be recycled" kind of way.

Quote from: dsivisAww, I thought the modrons were cute, in a "obey or be recycled" kind of way.

They are kinda cute. My gf certainly thinks so.:D

And Nordom in Torment, was awesome!

Quote from: noismsThat's true, but I think I see Warthur's point: a lot of the Planescape additions were boxed sets, which is psychologically more difficult to justify buying than a regular sourcebook.

Moreover, the core boxed set only gave the planes a cursory glance at best (a page each, if I remember correctly), so while the boxed sets (Planes of Law, Planes of Chaos, Planes of Conflict) weren't necessary, it was quite hard to envisage playing a game not set in Sigil or the Outlands without them.

There were a lot of boxed sets, period, Planescape or not in that era.  Every bloody setting line got piles of the damn things, it's been stated in fact that the proliferation was so extreme that the cost of them was one of the factors burying TSR in debt.  The idea that someone of that era would somehow confuse them all as being core seems patently ludicrous to me, and would've spoken more to the idiocy of those possessing such an erroneous and delusional view of the gaming landscape at that time.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe idea that someone of that era would somehow confuse them all as being core seems patently ludicrous to me, and would've spoken more to the idiocy of those possessing such an erroneous and delusional view of the gaming landscape at that time.

I don't think anybody mistook the boxed supplements as 'core'; I'm just saying it was pretty damn hard to run a Planescape campaign without the main three (The Planes of... series) that was set anywhere on the Outer Planes. I certainly had a hard time imagining how to have a game set in Limbo, or Pandemonium, or Carceri, or Gehenna, or Mount Olympus, without the Planes of... series, and I'm the most rabid Planescape fan ever.

Coupled with the perception that Planescape was 'weird' and 'difficult' and indisputably not High Fantasy of the Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk ilk, this created a kind of barrier to entry when it came to the lay player buying into the setting (both literally and metaphorically).

Quote from: J ArcaneThere were a lot of boxed sets, period, Planescape or not in that era.  Every bloody setting line got piles of the damn things, it's been stated in fact that the proliferation was so extreme that the cost of them was one of the factors burying TSR in debt.  The idea that someone of that era would somehow confuse them all as being core seems patently ludicrous to me, and would've spoken more to the idiocy of those possessing such an erroneous and delusional view of the gaming landscape at that time.

This is why in a way I find it hard what Warthur and noisms seem to be suggesting. I came to Planescape later, so I can't relate too well to what was going on back when it first came out (1994). I guess the fact that the earliest supplements were boxed sets instead of books, mattered to some people, as weird as that sounds.

I don't think that would have personally mattered to me, but I am known to be weird.. so..yeah.

EDIT: I mean. It has been YEARS since a SLA Industries supplement has come out, and I didn't ditch it just because time had elapsed. I bought the latest releases a few months ago.

Quote from: LancerThe Belief Points Mechanic had always intrigued me and I can't wait to use it. Belief really is power on the planes, and the mechanic shows that the adage isn't just lip service.

As an aside, Belief Points are a fantastic idea. It really does add a whole new flavour to the game, and in my experience forced the players to think about their character's attitudes, philosophies and actions in a far more interesting and in-depth way than alignment ever did.

Quote from: LancerThis is why in a way I find it hard what Warthur and noisms seem to be suggesting. I came to Planescape later, so I can't relate too well to what was going on back when it first came out (1994). I guess the fact that the earliest supplements were boxed sets instead of books, mattered to some people, as weird as that sounds.

See the post directly above, wherein I try to elaborate somewhat.

QuoteI don't think that would have personally mattered to me, but I am known to be weird.. so..yeah.

It didn't matter to me either, because I loved the setting as soon as I opened the first page of the Player's Guide to the Planes book in the main boxed set. But I did remember thinking, when the Planes of... sets started to come out, "Ah, so finally I can make a genuine effort to have a game set in Ysgard!" That's what makes me think there were other people who looked at the main boxed set, thought to themselves, "this is nothing like a complete setting," and didn't buy it or else gave up on it.

Quote from: noismsAs an aside, Belief Points are a fantastic idea. It really does add a whole new flavour to the game, and in my experience forced the players to think about their character's attitudes, philosophies and actions in a far more interesting and in-depth way than alignment ever did.

I really need to start up a new campaign here. Damn.

Quote from: noismsI don't think anybody mistook the boxed supplements as 'core'; I'm just saying it was pretty damn hard to run a Planescape campaign without the main three (The Planes of... series) that was set anywhere on the Outer Planes. I certainly had a hard time imagining how to have a game set in Limbo, or Pandemonium, or Carceri, or Gehenna, or Mount Olympus, without the Planes of... series, and I'm the most rabid Planescape fan ever.

Hmm. Well many of the planescape fans (not me, certainly) that I speak to sort of think of the campaign outside of Sigil sort of ancillary.

For me, that stuff is what the planes are about, and I would have felt jipped if they went to less trouble making a comprehensive overview of the planes and a guide to adventuring therein.

Smack talk as you will, but the PS Boxed sets are products that I still use in my games to these days.

Quote from: noismsSee the post directly above, wherein I try to elaborate somewhat.



It didn't matter to me either, because I loved the setting as soon as I opened the first page of the Player's Guide to the Planes book in the main boxed set. But I did remember thinking, when the Planes of... sets started to come out, "Ah, so finally I can make a genuine effort to have a game set in Ysgard!" That's what makes me think there were other people who looked at the main boxed set, thought to themselves, "this is nothing like a complete setting," and didn't buy it or else gave up on it.

So you also kind of believe in a mixture of what Warthur and I were saying.
Part of it was the delay in getting certain key products out on time (i.e. Planewalker's Handbook) and the other being the non-traditional/surreal feel of the setting.

Now that I have a better perspective of what was going on when the setting first came out, it makes more sense now.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSmack talk as you will, but the PS Boxed sets are products that I still use in my games to these days.

Going by your avatar, I figured you were a Planescape fan.

Do you use those PS Boxed sets more or the 3e Manual of the Planes? :D

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHmm. Well many of the planescape fans (not me, certainly) that I speak to sort of think of the campaign outside of Sigil sort of ancillary.

For me, that stuff is what the planes are about, and I would have felt jipped if they went to less trouble making a comprehensive overview of the planes and a guide to adventuring therein.

Smack talk as you will, but the PS Boxed sets are products that I still use in my games to these days.

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying I can understand why people not au fait with the setting got the impression that Planescape was a bigger investment in many ways than Forgotten Realms or what have you.

Quote from: LancerIf after buying the original boxed set and the Planewalker's Handbook, some people still didn't know what to do with the setting,and dumped it, I can't speak for them because the basic info really is in those products I mentioned.

If you believe that you need the "Planes of" boxes to run Planescape properly, and you've decided you're not up for that, you're not likely to lay out the cash for the basic box and the handbook (which, remember, came along reasonably late in the product cyclce) in the first place.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere were a lot of boxed sets, period, Planescape or not in that era.  Every bloody setting line got piles of the damn things, it's been stated in fact that the proliferation was so extreme that the cost of them was one of the factors burying TSR in debt.  The idea that someone of that era would somehow confuse them all as being core seems patently ludicrous to me, and would've spoken more to the idiocy of those possessing such an erroneous and delusional view of the gaming landscape at that time.

Not entirely. Remember that at the time that a lot of people were confused about what Planescape was for - I remember lots of people thinking it was going to be like the Manual of the Planes, only for 2E. The thing is, the information in the core PS box seems pretty sparse when you look at it side-by-side with the Manual of the Planes: it's no surprise that people who were looking for a MotP update thought "ah, rats, they expect me to buy more boxed sets when I've got the whole deal here in this 1E rulebook? No thanks."

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHmm. Well many of the planescape fans (not me, certainly) that I speak to sort of think of the campaign outside of Sigil sort of ancillary.

What wasn't helpful, of course, was that TSR seemed to be in two minds as to whether that was actually the case...

QuoteFor me, that stuff is what the planes are about, and I would have felt jipped if they went to less trouble making a comprehensive overview of the planes and a guide to adventuring therein.

Smack talk as you will, but the PS Boxed sets are products that I still use in my games to these days.

For me, a "comprehensive overview" of the planes is a contradiction in terms; they're supposed to be infinite, after all.

Personally, I like to have lots of detail on Sigil, as the PCs' home base, and just the bare bones and flavour pointers on the other planes. Other-planar jaunts should rarely, if ever, end up going to the same place twice. The problem I had with the "Planes of..." series was that there were just a few too many planes where, yeah, they were infinite, but only about a dozen places on them were actually important, so they were actually more constrained and less detailed than most Prime Material Plane settings.

What I think was called for, is broad brushstrokes to give GMs an idea of the general flavour of each plane, and guidelines for homebrewing your own areas on the plane in question. The core set provided the former, but not the latter, and I'm not sure that the "Planes of..." series provided the latter either. A core PS set with both would have kicked ass, but would probably had a much thicker DM's book (or just a little less artwork...).

Quote from: LancerSo you also kind of believe in a mixture of what Warthur and I were saying.
Part of it was the delay in getting certain key products out on time (i.e. Planewalker's Handbook) and the other being the non-traditional/surreal feel of the setting.

I'm not convinced that the PW's Handbook was necessarily planned from the first place - in fact, in a lot of places it reads like a somewhat expanded version of the player's book from the core box. I think TSR realised that Planescape looked horribly inaccessible and cobbled together a product to make it less so, but it was too little too late.

BTW, during my brief Planescape stint as a player, most of us found the Planes we visited to be actually plains in different colours, and with one or two cities on it.

It felt like visiting differently sky-coloured floating disks, the size of several square kilometers.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, during my brief Planescape stint as a player, most of us found the Planes we visited to be actually plains in different colours, and with one or two cities on it.

It felt like visiting differently sky-coloured floating disks, the size of several square kilometers.

You must have had a sucky GM.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou must have had a sucky GM.

Or one who simply had slight trouble with the English language. That's not the first time I've heard of someone confusing planes with plains.

Quote from: WarthurFor me, a "comprehensive overview" of the planes is a contradiction in terms; they're supposed to be infinite, after all.

They are infinite. Having lots of detail didn't stop that, it just gave you, the DM, more to work with.

Planescape had the rare and greatly desirable characteristic for a published campaign setting: they could give you a lot of detail to play with without hemming you in like a traditional campaign setting would.

So I'd call this "feature" not "bug".

Quote from: Caesar SlaadPlanescape had the rare and greatly desirable characteristic for a published campaign setting: they could give you a lot of detail to play with without hemming you in like a traditional campaign setting would.

They could, but they didn't. Instead they went and hemmed you right in.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThey could, but they didn't. Instead they went and hemmed you right in.

Except, you know, they didn't. Still infinite amount of room to plop down whatever you want. And the added utility of plugging into the setting's convention of portals to get PCs there easily.

I really don't understand the prevailing philosophy by the naysayers..

"The Planes are meant to be admired and talked about, but full-on exploration.. NAY.. BAR THAT BERK"

I say that's a whole bunch of addle-coved hogwash. The planes were meant to be explored, adventured in, kick butt in, altered as a response to one's beliefs (etc), and not merely a place where one just dawdles and dreams about in all its artistic beauty, (or argue about it endlessly like we are doing here).

Planescape was neat. It gave you far more information on how to run the planes than MotP ever did, and without over-detailing it to the point where the DM had no room to expand. How could you "overdetail" Planescape even if you wanted to? After all,  the planes were infinite and most of the setting hadn't even been touched at all-- So those that say the planes were "overdetailed" are looking at the glass half-empty instead of half-full (or the other way, you know what I mean).

Let's see, the Abyss literally had an infinite number of layers. The cause of the Blood War nor the motives behind the yugoloths' machinations are ever revealed.. Nor is it known who the Lady of Pain really is or why she guards Sigil; all left to the DM-- Overdetailed and hemmed you right in huh? The plot hooks in this setting are incredible.
 
Is the concept really all that different from say Starcluster? --- A ridiculously large universe (or multiverse) where the GM has room to unravel his own vision?
I personally loved that.

EDIT: For the record, MotP never impressed me. THAT was too sparse for any *serious* gaming on the planes. It was a mere book, whereas Planescape was an entire setting.

Quote from: LancerEDIT: For the record, MotP never impressed me. THAT was too sparse for any *serious* gaming on the planes. It was a mere book, whereas Planescape was an entire setting.

If ANY setting is "too sparse for serious gaming" in your eyes, you are doing it wrong.

Quote from: WarthurIf you believe that you need the "Planes of" boxes to run Planescape properly, and you've decided you're not up for that, you're not likely to lay out the cash for the basic box and the handbook (which, remember, came along reasonably late in the product cyclce) in the first place.

That just makes no sense to me. I would buy/read the original boxed set FIRST, and base my decision off of that, before making any judgements on any future purchases.

Quote from: SettembriniIf ANY setting is "too sparse for serious gaming" in your eyes, you are doing it wrong.

No I am not. You just have a different way of doing things that is just as valid for you.

I like detail. Lots of detail in many of my fantasy and sci-fi settings. I love settings that feel alive with important personalities, politics, economics, history, the whole nine yards all fleshed out for its nations(lighthearted games like Toon or Teenagers from Outer Space, of course not). Doubly so, when you are talking about the infinite multiverse. If I was going to work with such a sparse multiverse handbook, I might as well devise my own using something like "The Primal Order"... or go back to using Mystara supplements like the RC and the Gold Box set.

And MotP wasn't really a setting anyways. It was an introductory manual.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadExcept, you know, they didn't. Still infinite amount of room to plop down whatever you want. And the added utility of plugging into the setting's convention of portals to get PCs there easily.

Exactly. One thing the books and boxed sets taken as a whole did really well, was to give a flavour to each of the planes, while maintaining complete freedom for the DM to make up whatever they wanted within that plane.

If RPGPundit or anybody else doesn't appreciate this or believe it, I urge you to take a look at the boxed set "Planes of...." series. Each one has around six planes defined inside it, and every single one of those planes is more than a standard campaign setting, merely in and of itself, limited only by two things: the flavour provided by the designers (e.g. Ysgard is Chaotic Neutral Good and vaguely Norse in tone) and the DM's imagination.

To take two examples from my own experience which I think illustrate this, we had an entire long-term (levels 1 to around 17 or 18) campaign with a massive plot-arc which was set more-or-less totally within the inner workings of a thieves' guild in a medium sized town on one layer of Bytopia. There were interplanar references, but the campaign itself focused essentially entirely on this one town and the immediate surroundings, and sometimes the other layer of Bytopia. But with the same group we had a separate campaign which was a massive, interplanar adventuring jaunt that went through just about every single plane (inner and outer) and got the characters embroiled in a huge plot by the Egyptian god Set to steal a layer from Acheron and bring it to Baator. It encompassed faction politicking in Sigil, battles with Tanar'ri in the Abyss, searching for forgotten exiles in Pandemonium and scaling Mount Olympus, and just about everything in between.

As a DM, you just don't get that sort of freedom and variety to make up whatever the hell you want in other published campaign settings, and to have so much scope, from the specific and small-scale (like our Bytopia game) to the super-duper-multiverse epic (like the second). To say that Planescape is limited is just....weird and misguided beyond all comprehending.

In addition to the "Planes of" sets , which I heartily recommend, I'd also consider "On Hallowed Ground" for a full exposition of how Gods, pantheons, proxies, and priesthoods are handled in Planescape. If only because there was some suggestion earlier that the Planescape writers "hated myth."
It's a great read.

Quote from: LancerIn addition to the "Planes of" sets , which I heartily recommend, I'd also consider "On Hallowed Ground" for a full exposition of how Gods, pantheons, proxies, and priesthoods are handled in Planescape. If only because there was some suggestion earlier that the Planescape writers "hated myth."
It's a great read.

To be fair, it could be argued that assigning D&D stats to a pantheon is one of the more un-mythic things you can do. It takes powerful cosmic entities embodying fundamental concepts and treats them like any other NPC.

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, it could be argued that assigning D&D stats to a pantheon is one of the more un-mythic things you can do. It takes powerful cosmic entities embodying fundamental concepts and treats them like any other NPC.

Except, I don't recall that OHG had D&D stats assigned for the various deities. It had assigned relative power ranking titles within the pantheon(i.e.  Lesser God, Intermediate God, Greater God, Pantheon Ruler..etc), but this is not the same thing. I don't have the book with me currently, (and it's been years since I read it) but it had given descriptions of the various realms, pantheons, and portfolios for both AD&D and real-world Gods.

If memory serves, OHG had stats, but only for important proxies, priests and that sort of thing.

The 3e "Deities and Demigods" certainly had actual stats for deities, and so did "The Primal Order" and Mystara's "Wrath of the Immortals" Boxed Set. But those are all non-Planescape titles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: As for stat usage for Gods in a campaign being "unmythic"-- I can see arguments for and against it either way. IMHO, if the stats are only used as a way to determine if the God has enough "essence" (or what have you) to grant powers to all those followers on all those worlds, or to see if he has achieved enough clout in his pantheon to create that universe (instead of the puny solar system), or if two such deities come into conflict and the GM needs to determine who wins-- I see nothing wrong with such "behind the scenes" determinations via stats. Others may prefer to "wing it" but why not a more quantitative approach? You had mentioned in another thread that you hate game fiction where the abilities elicited by the story's protagonists can't be duplicated in play... In a story about deities, such quantitative frameworks would avoid such problems. :D

As long as this is left mostly to "behind-the-scenes" activities, and the GM is not rolling for deity actions during play, I have no problem with it. This is useful whenever the GM needs to resolve a diety's action whose outcome is in doubt (such as a skirmish between two dieties that occurs between game sessions). It's fair game and the mystique is maintained for the players.

The problems start when the GM starts using deities as ultra-powerful in-game adversaries against the PCs. That's just poor GMing (or playing), in my honest opinion. In fact, the PCs should just die immediately as a lesson in humility(and the GM chastised)- plain and simple- no matter how many epic levels they have or legendary they are. Stat or no stat, it doesn't change the end result.

The aforementioned "The Primal Order," while using stats for deities, does an awesome job emphasizing the great gap between them from other ultra-powerful NPCs. For one, it gives deities powers and abilities that only they would be able to use via something called "Primal." Any being with Primal can destroy a mortal without breaking a sweat no matter how powerful. Conversely, no mortal, irrespective of how powerful, can touch even the lowliest God..etc.
"Wrath of the Immortals" also does a good job simulating this, and it also stats up its deities.

Stats for Deities are the epitome of D&D-ness. :pundit:

Quote from: SettembriniStats for Deities are the epitome of D&D-ness. :pundit:

Anybody who doesn't stat up their Deities is a swine. :pundit:

Quote from: LancerAnybody who doesn't stat up their Deities is a swine. :pundit:

NOW you have arrived. Welcome to theRPGsite!

Quote from: LancerAnybody who doesn't stat up their Deities is a swine. :pundit:

Maybe your D&D games . Of course your Swine-ish thinking is wrong. WFRP , Midnight even LotR don't stat up their dieties. If you think every aspect of the game should be mechanically represented....:forge:

Regards,
David R

David, it was meant to be a joke dude..:)

Sorry about that, Lancer.

Regards,
David R

It's all good.

Quote from: David RMaybe your D&D games . Of course your Swine-ish thinking is wrong. WFRP , Midnight even LotR don't stat up their dieties. If you think every aspect of the game should be mechanically represented....:forge:

Regards,
David R

Thing is, many deities of ancient legend and myth were portrayed as not being really immortal. They could die in various ways. It's more the influence of modern Judeo-Christian religion that makes gods unkillable in the mindset of the average person.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonThing is, many deities of ancient legend and myth were portrayed as not being really immortal. They could die in various ways. It's more the influence of modern Judeo-Christian religion that makes gods unkillable in the mindset of the average person.

Sure but is it Swinethink to not stat your deities ?

In my fantasy games there are two possible ways that the pcs may "destroy" a god.

1. The pcs kill the diety's avatar - which does not exactly kill the being but rather sends him/her back to his/her own plane.

2. Destroy the diety's influence on the material plane by destroying his/her worshippers and places of worship. Again this does not kill the diety but rather makes it difficult or impossible to manifest on the material plane.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSure but is it Swinethink to not stat your deities ?

It's swinethink to insist that statting or not statting your deities in somehow inherently detrimental to your game, for any value of "you".

In your game... do what works best for the game you are trying to make. :cool:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt's swinethink to insist that statting or not statting your deities in somehow inherently detrimental to your game, for any value of "you".

In your game... do what works best for the game you are trying to make. :cool:

Exactly.

For my money, statting up deities is entirely appropriate for Planescape, where they're just yet another bunch of powerful dudes on the Outer Planes. It is less appropriate for, say, a game where the deities are distant, abstract, mystical entities.

Coincidently, the Godzilla Gaming Podcast just released their latest episode (issue? show?) and it's dedicated to Planescape.  They do a pretty thorough review which is very descriptive.  It kind of fired up my old-school gaming synapses.  The boxed set does sound like it looks really cool.  Then they have an interview with Monte Cook, who contributed a lot to the later books in the line.

You can find it here:
http://www.godzillagamingpodcast.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=331341

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt's swinethink to insist that statting or not statting your deities in somehow inherently detrimental to your game, for any value of "you".

In your game... do what works best for the game you are trying to make. :cool:

I agree. I figure it like this: let gods be statted for those who want to use such stats, and those who don't want to use 'em can ignore 'em. I think where some games, like D&D 3e, for example, fall short is that such books often lean far too heavily in one direction. 3e's Deities & Demigods used a lot of space just for stats (and how to generate such stats), and didn't really provide any good, substantive insight into constructing churches, ways of worshiping, or doctrine. The real world myth cycles covered in the book didn't really cover any of that. I'd have paid more for a book that include all that and the stats...

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI agree. I figure it like this: let gods be statted for those who want to use such stats, and those who don't want to use 'em can ignore 'em.

This has always been my position on the issue. As a rule I will NOT use the stats for deities. But my way of thinking is: why would you want to limit the options? If you include the stat, then GMs can choose to use them or not use them as they see fit.

CoC D20 was brilliant in this regard, because in the main text it made clear that the Mythos Deities were unstoppable forces; but then it included the stats in the appendix all the same.

RPGPundit

By the way, the gods in Planescape do not have stats, as says the book On Hollowed Ground.

The book is also clear that no player will ever see a god face to face (unless of course it manifests through an avatar). The only exception to this rule is its highest proxies (and these will be, most of time, NPCs anyway).

;)

Planescape sucks?  Looks like I gots me a list of names for my flamethrower!

PS is still THE bar for what constitutes an amazing RPG setting.   The depth of flavor and the new ways of looking at D&D gameplay were simply amazing.  But it was too "not LotR" for most D&Ders.   I was thrilled that finally someone made a setting that was not like anything I had read about or seen before.  

As for the statting of gods, that totally depends on the setting for me.   Some settings, I want invulnerable immortals who can't be affected by anything.  Some settings, I want 1000 HP avatars walking around the world waiting to get whacked by PCs.

Quote from: David RMaybe your D&D games . Of course your Swine-ish thinking is wrong. WFRP , Midnight even LotR don't stat up their dieties. If you think every aspect of the game should be mechanically represented....:forge:

Regards,
David R

But hey stats their clerics and trought clerics, dieties are sort of stated... so every game in existence that contains religion is inherently swinish...

Quote from: SpinachcatAs for the statting of gods, that totally depends on the setting for me.   Some settings, I want invulnerable immortals who can't be affected by anything.  Some settings, I want 1000 HP avatars walking around the world waiting to get whacked by PCs.

And in yet other settings, gods are simply something that people believe in even if there are no signs of their presence in the world, so that your epic warrior can scream himself hoarse at the heavens and there's still no guarantee that anyone's listening.

Quote from: FritzsBut hey stats their clerics and trought clerics, dieties are sort of stated... so every game in existence that contains religion is inherently swinish...

Stick around here long enough and you will notice the same two or three people stamping the term Swine on just about anything.

Regards,
David R

Incidentally, in case you haven't caught the news, it appears that Planescape will be resurrected for the fourth edition of D&D as a limited series of three books, along with other campaign settings from the past such as Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun.

Quote from: GrimGentIncidentally, in case you haven't caught the news, it appears that Planescape will be resurrected for the fourth edition of D&D as a limited series of three books, along with other campaign settings from the past such as Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun.

I heard that too. I hope they don't spoil it.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis has always been my position on the issue. As a rule I will NOT use the stats for deities. But my way of thinking is: why would you want to limit the options? If you include the stat, then GMs can choose to use them or not use them as they see fit.

CoC D20 was brilliant in this regard, because in the main text it made clear that the Mythos Deities were unstoppable forces; but then it included the stats in the appendix all the same.

RPGPundit

What I liked about CoCd20 (among many things) was that it essentially acknowledged that Cthulhu & Co. were unbeatable by the typical Lovecraft character, but not necessarily the typical sword & sorcery character. Most Lovecraft characters - scratch that; all Lovecraft characters - were bookish milquetoasts who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and had the steely resolve of a Barney Fife. It's all about context.

Quote from: GrimGentIncidentally, in case you haven't caught the news, it appears that Planescape will be resurrected for the fourth edition of D&D as a limited series of three books, along with other campaign settings from the past such as Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun.

Quibble: the Wizards folks on ENWorld have said that that's just the list of settings which they are considering publishing using the three-book model (which they intend to stick to, even for mad-popular settings like Forgotten Realms... though I strongly suspect they'll end up caving and putting out more material for FR anyway). They make no guarantees that they'll end up developing any of them.

That said, a three-book treatment of Planescape would be interesting. They're already doing a separate Manual of the Planes for 4E, so high-level exploration of the Outer Planes is already covered; I guess they'll focus strongly on Sigil for the PS material and let the Manual of the Planes cover realms beyond Sigil.

Incidentally, so far as I can make out the three-book model consists of Campaign Guide (for DMs), Player's Guide (for players), and a reasonably substantial adventure (the Realms one is meant to take PCs from 2nd level to 5th level). I'm quite interested to see how that pans out.

Quote from: WarthurQuibble: the Wizards folks on ENWorld have said that that's just the list of settings which they are considering publishing using the three-book model (which they intend to stick to, even for mad-popular settings like Forgotten Realms... though I strongly suspect they'll end up caving and putting out more material for FR anyway).

Well, yes, which would be why I said that it appears to be the case. At this point there's already quite a bit of reliable information about the new edition, but still pretty much more up in the air. (Also, even WW has been breaking away from their recent model of limited lines, due to demand.)