Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PunkRockBard 05-07-07, 08:20 PM	Hello all.... i have known that Forgotten Realms and Eberron have had their own planes for awhile. i just recently started thinking as to why this is so. i know that WOTC wanted to minimize the multiple campaigns to stop dividing sales..and that makes sense. Did this play into the reasoning? i am glad that all of these "noncore" gods are now being mentioned and used in the planes. i like what Forgotten Realms has turned into with 3.0/3.5 overall..but the FR specific realms just seem...well pointless. i am sure this was discussed years ago...still..if anyone wants to enlighten me i'd be grateful.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-07-07, 08:37 PM	Going by what SKR has said (one of the designers for the 3E FR) there was a feeling among the 3E FR designers that being yoked to the core/Planescape setup created several problems. One being that generic/Planescape-setting events would then impact the FR setting even if that wasn't what the FR team wanted. Another being that the alignment-based wheel didn't make too much thematic sense for the FR in that FR deities are stratified by interest more than by alignment (as reflected in the FR's cosmology) and dividing them up by alignment as the Wheel does was thus rather clunky. A third was that they wanted the focus of the FR cosmology to be on the FR itself rather than on planar struggles, whereas the Wheel/Planescape tends to make the cosmology all about the planes and their struggles. The FR's cosmology was originally undefined back in the 1E days, and other settings were often similar or using some other assumptions. The push to Great Wheel-ize everything gathered steam during 2E and was for the reason you mentioned. ("People won't buy plane-related books unless every setting uses the same planes!" reasoning.) 3E reversed that and allowed settings to have their own cosmologies again, which allows them to develop in different directions - Eberron would never have worked out as it has if it was forced to use the Planescape/Great Wheel cosmology, for example.
Gray Richardson 05-07-07, 08:51 PM	Monte Cook had some insight into the change and his part in it, you can read about it in his design diary at this link here: http://www.montecook.com/diary33.html
Gray Richardson 05-07-07, 08:55 PM	Here is what Rich Baker had to share on the impetus for the change: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11537288&postcount=263
PunkRockBard 05-07-07, 09:13 PM	Hhmm....i will read those links. i am not sure i still like the change. As for the gods not being alignment based....that does not hold up at all. Many of the "core" deities are on planes not of their alignment (Chaotic Evil Orc God in Archeron...same with Neutral Evil Goblins...those are just two examples). Gods have always been more belief/interest based regardless of the campaign. i miss certain things....Loviatar on Gehenna etc...i know that they can be added in homebrew nonetheless.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-07-07, 09:23 PM	As a FR example - in old-E, you had the gods of magic segregated by alignment planes. In 3E, they're all located in Dweomerheart, the magic-related outer plane, despite having contradictory alignments. In the case of the dwarven pantheon, they all reside in Dwarfhome, regardless of alignment - whereas in the Wheel you either have to break the pantheon apart and scatter them across different planes based on alignment (some are LE, some are LG, some are LN, and a couple are NG or CG), or break the alignment-based motif of the Wheel by plonking them all on a single plane. (In which case, why is the Wheel arranged by alignment if the planar alignments are routinely broken anyway?) Ditto for the Mulhorandi pantheon, which is based on the Egyptian one. In the Wheel, they're tossed hither and yon across all manner of planes based on alignment, whereas in the FR they're all on one plane, Heliopolis, because they all share a common interest (the Mulhorandi people; they're essentially a racial pantheon).
PunkRockBard 05-07-07, 09:27 PM	Hhmm.....as i recall many pantheons..despite opposing alignments....were grouped together on planes. The Greek Pantheon weren't all Chaotic Good. i don't see anything wrong with Deities being on a plane not of their alignment....Gods are more belief based. Exemplars (Yugoloths, Modrons etc) fill the role of alignment.
Gray Richardson 05-07-07, 10:16 PM	Hhmm....i will read those links. i am not sure i still like the change. As for the gods not being alignment based....that does not hold up at all. Many of the "core" deities are on planes not of their alignment (Chaotic Evil Orc God in Archeron...same with Neutral Evil Goblins...those are just two examples). Gods have always been more belief/interest based regardless of the campaign. i miss certain things....Loviatar on Gehenna etc...i know that they can be added in homebrew nonetheless.3e is not about giving you limitations, it's whole philosophy is designed around giving you more options. Pretty much everything in the 3e Manual of the Planes is optional, and the book gives you several suggestions on how to change up your cosmology. It even includes several alternate cosmology configurations in the back of the book, as well as numerous examples of modifications all the way through. And if you prefer to run your Eberron or Realms campaign with the Wheel, then by all means you should do that. The whole point is to have fun with it. If it is not fun for you, then you should change it up to make it how it works best for you. :)
Neutronium_Dragon 05-07-07, 10:22 PM	> i don't see anything wrong with Deities being on a plane not of their > alignment....Gods are more belief based. Which is why the FR cosmology was arranged as it was - the planes are based on the interest or concept of the gods who occupy it, rather than supposedly based on alignment. (This sort of thing illustrates one of the problems with the Wheel - either you have to break pantheons apart, or ignore the supposed alignment basis of the planes - and if you're doing the latter, why is their realm even attached to a plane whose alignment they don't share or care about?)
Shemeska the Marauder 05-08-07, 07:28 AM	3e is not about giving you limitations, it's whole philosophy is designed around giving you more options. It's unfortunate however that the 3e FR cosmology change has done largely that, limited the suitability of its planes for planar adventuring. All of the continuity nightmares aside, the new setup has been poorly detailed, and since it's mostly composed of the micromanaged backyards of specific gods rather than infinite planes in which those gods have their discrete realms, there's little mortals can do to remain even plausibly relevant. The new FR cosmology doesn't impact you if you don't use the planes much, but it was a destructive change for those that do. 6-7 years after the change, I've yet to see the situation improve.
Steely_Dan 05-08-07, 07:45 AM	We still go by the 2nd edition Planescape/Spelljammer cosmology, where Toril and Krynn ect are worlds within their own crystal spheres floating in the phlogiston of the one material plane (The Prime). The people of Krynn may call the first layer of Hell the Abyss, but it is still Avernus (Krynninas are just a bit ignorant about the planes). We have even included Eberron on the Great Wheel and it’'s working out just delightfully.
sciborg2 05-08-07, 12:01 PM	I can see the reasoning for the FR tree, but it is somewhat problematic given Toril's history with the realms. I don't think Planescape per se worked the realms in much, rather the setting itself was tied to the planes with fiends coming from Myth Drannor, the involvement of the gods and their realms, and situations that Greenwood enjoyed like his three wizards articles in Dragon. Planescape's greatest error - and one it began to correct as time went by - was the supposed ignorance and belittling of Primers. The dumbest way to attract players from those settings is to call them "Clueless". Krynn, however, is a continuity disaster with no one being able to get its gods and their realms correct until Takhisis who is very much on the Abyss ends up in the Nine Hells.
Vharuck 05-08-07, 12:10 PM	Eberron has the problem where, while Eberronians and even planar beings worship gods, the gods don't physically exist anywhere. It's possible in Eberron to not believe in the gods. The book even goes to state that those spells which allow you to communicate with your god instead allow you to communicate with a powerful outsider dedicated to your god. Letting the gods of other worlds into Eberron would really screw up the whole theology of the setting. However, as has been said, if that turmoil floats your boat do whatever you want in your campaign.
Fabius Maximus 05-08-07, 03:11 PM	Eberron has the problem where, while Eberronians and even planar beings worship gods, the gods don't physically exist anywhere. It's possible in Eberron to not believe in the gods. The book even goes to state that those spells which allow you to communicate with your god instead allow you to communicate with a powerful outsider dedicated to your god. Letting the gods of other worlds into Eberron would really screw up the whole theology of the setting. However, as has been said, if that turmoil floats your boat do whatever you want in your campaign. You could always rule that Eberron is just damn hard to reach.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-08-07, 06:53 PM	That still creates the same problem. Eberron does not assert "The Truth" of divinity or the afterlife, and religions in Eberron are thus about fundamental disagreements over the nature of each rather than being the "my god is bigger than your god and you're going to (insert plane here)" ***-for-tat of the Wheel and the FR. Plonking it down within the Wheel, even if it's hard to reach, breaks that paradigm, since the Wheel (and the FR cosmology) are both very clear-cut as to those issues. The fact that it does something completely different is one of the strengths of the setting; I know that won't stop the "Great Wheel uber alles" types, but denigrating that uniqueness by folding it into the generic cosmology doesn't do it any favors. Edit: Okay, I shouldn't have used Planescape as a shorthand for the Great Wheel; they're kind of inextricably linked in my mind, though. Changed. ;)
sciborg2 05-08-07, 06:56 PM	"Planescape uber alles" :confused: What does PS have to do w/ this?
Neutronium_Dragon 05-08-07, 07:18 PM	> Planescape's greatest error - and one it began to correct as time went by - > was the supposed ignorance and belittling of Primers. The dumbest way to > attract players from those settings is to call them "Clueless". It wasn't limited to that, either. I remember the first few books being riddled with put-downs about the way things worked - or sometimes simply the way things were portrayed by detractors - of the other settings. I don't know whether it was supposed to "attract" other players or to convince people who took up Planescape that their setting was "superior", but someone clearly had a brain bypass moment when they decided on that approach.
sciborg2 05-08-07, 07:25 PM	^true. :( but then without it we wouldn't have Clueless from Shemmy's story hour. :)
Fabius Maximus 05-08-07, 07:54 PM	You're really clueless if you didn't notice why this hard-nosed attitude of planar beings was used. Imagine being a body who's familiar with all types of strange creatures. You see them every day, talk with them, make deals with them. And along comes some prime berk and starts to apply his rules, morals/ethics and by definition limitated experiences to the world you know. That's annoying. It's really annoying. Because it doesn't work. You grow tired of explaining it to them, so your attitude grows quite unfriendly. It's the same with people living in big cities who have to deal with people from small towns or villages.
sciborg2 05-08-07, 08:17 PM	i was thinking more along the lines that the Primes can be part of the planar economy as well. not every prime, especially adventurers from Toril or Oerth, are going to be clueless. also, what makes you think someone who plays in FR is going to come over to PS just so he can be made to feel the setting he enjoys is stupid and provincial? Thankfully PS abandoned this mindset toward its end somewhat...
Neutronium_Dragon 05-08-07, 08:47 PM	It would have been one thing if the attitude was found among planar creatures. It would have been somewhat understandable, though still not the greatest image to present to people who played in other settings. That's not what happened, though - the attitude was written directly into Planescape's rules-material (certainly the early stuff), directly insulting the other settings as a whole (not just the people who lived there).
Gray Richardson 05-08-07, 09:04 PM	It's unfortunate however that the 3e FR cosmology change has done largely that, limited the suitability of its planes for planar adventuring. All of the continuity nightmares aside, the new setup has been poorly detailed, and since it's mostly composed of the micromanaged backyards of specific gods rather than infinite planes in which those gods have their discrete realms, there's little mortals can do to remain even plausibly relevant. The new FR cosmology doesn't impact you if you don't use the planes much, but it was a destructive change for those that do. 6-7 years after the change, I've yet to see the situation improve.I strongly disagree. I run my players through extensive planar adventures as part of my FR campaign. I use the Great Tree planes, and we have a fantastic time exploring them. Pretty much all the continuity errors have been explained or fixed, so there is no problem there. I agree that there has not been enough published about the FR planes, and I would certainly love to see many more books and adventures published that explore the Great Tree cosmology. But there is definitely a lot more in the Tree than the micromanaged backyards of gods. I see infinite possibilities for adventure. The only limits of the Tree is the breadth and scope of your imagination. Feel free to use whichever cosmology you like, but please don't knock the one that I choose
Neutronium_Dragon 05-08-07, 09:54 PM	I certainly had no problem sending one of my FR groups on a whirlwind tour of several of the cosmology's planes. It involved Karsus's heart and a rather madcap eldritch machine, but they came back with rather more knowledge than they started with.
ripvanwormer 05-09-07, 03:42 AM	The FR's cosmology was originally undefined back in the 1E days No, it wasn't. It specifically used the same cosmological structure as every other D&D world, even before TSR bought the setting. The FR gods were actually designed with the 17 "Great Wheel" outer planes in mind. also, what makes you think someone who plays in FR is going to come over to PS just so he can be made to feel the setting he enjoys is stupid and provincial? Thankfully PS abandoned this mindset toward its end somewhat.. Planescape never had that mindset. Only people with no sense of irony thought it did. Personally, I agree with Sean K. Reynolds that the Great Tree cosmology is fine for a campaign that only uses one Material Planar world, but suboptimal for a campaign that also includes Oerth, Krynn, Eberron, Earth, and so forth. In the latter case, it makes more sense to use a single, more inclusive cosmos with one Abyss, one Baator and so on shared for all of them.
sciborg2 05-09-07, 03:57 AM	Planescape never had that mindset. Only people with no sense of irony thought it did. not sure I get what you're saying? :confused: I recall a lot of stuff about Clueless primes in my early books that slowly went away as time passed. Mind you, I'm willing to change my mind on this as I myself had been annoyed endlessly by all those who blame PS for taking away the words "demon" and "devil" or other setting changes made before or after its arrival.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-09-07, 04:55 AM	I also rather clearly remember running across a lot of "Oh, that setting is so munchkin/lame/etc" comments stirred in amidst the early Planescape stuff, along with the ever-present "Clueless" stuff. It was one of the things which quickly put me off of the whole idea.
Fabius Maximus 05-09-07, 07:05 AM	I also rather clearly remember running across a lot of "Oh, that setting is so munchkin/lame/etc" comments stirred in amidst the early Planescape stuff, along with the ever-present "Clueless" stuff. It was one of the things which quickly put me off of the whole idea. I did not encounter these sayings when I read into it. Could you point them out to me?
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 07:12 AM	I did not encounter these sayings when I read into it. Could you point them out to me? Me too, please. I have almost all of the Planescape material and I don't remember any of the text insulting another settings, calling them lame or munchkin etc. As for munchkin, no D&D player I met in the early 90's even used that phrase for anything. In fact, Planescape, and to a lesser extent Spelljammer, seemed to embrace all of TSR's settings at the time, that's why I thought they were so damn cool.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-09-07, 07:43 AM	It didn't use that word - but that was more or less the implication. Can I point them out specifically? No - I haven't had access to any Planescape books for years now. (I wasn't exactly keen on collecting/hanging onto them given the way they put me off.)
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 08:07 AM	It didn't use that word - but that was more or less the implication. Okay, but again, I don't see that implication, and why do you?
Neutronium_Dragon 05-09-07, 08:12 AM	Because even if they weren't using the word "munchkin" directly, that was certainly the opinion being expressed within the Planescape books - they were particularly fond of taking digs at the FR setting, but it wasn't limited to just that one. If I had the books I could certainly go back and pull out page references, but I don't have them and frankly I don't care enough about Planescape's merits or lack thereof to bother.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 08:49 AM	Because even if they weren't using the word "munchkin" directly, that was certainly the opinion being expressed within the Planescape books - they were particularly fond of taking digs at the FR setting, but it wasn't limited to just that one. If I had the books I could certainly go back and pull out page references, but I don't have them and frankly I don't care enough about Planescape's merits or lack thereof to bother. Well I do have pretty much all of the Planescape material and there is no negative opinions about other settings, and certainly no digs at FR in any of the material. If you don't like Planescape, that's fine, but it seems like you are just making things up to just to bash it.
sciborg2 05-09-07, 10:51 AM	Because even if they weren't using the word "munchkin" directly, that was certainly the opinion being expressed within the Planescape books - they were particularly fond of taking digs at the FR setting, but it wasn't limited to just that one. That I don't think happened at all. I think it was a few comments in the early sources - mind you I didn't want to imply this was a pandemic of insults but rather some isolated incidents in the first couple books.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 10:59 AM	That I don't think happened at all. …Because it didn't.
Bob the Efreet 05-09-07, 03:42 PM	along with the ever-present "Clueless" stuff. The interesting part is there are a number of references to clueless planars. There are two main points that didn't seem to be translated well to everybody: 1. Planars are jaded. They live alongside gods. When you grow up on Arborea it gives a different view of life. 2. This is a planar setting. While the prime worlds are part of it, and relevant in a cosmological sense, they're not the focus of the setting. You have Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. if you want to know about primes.
sciborg2 05-09-07, 03:50 PM	I think I should clarify my position even though I realize I sound like a backtracking apologist...but I am a PS fan and I found it unfortunate that it made players from other settings feel, at times, unwelcome. I think rather than harp on this Clueless concept as referring to primes coming from FR or Oerth, it might have been better to do what Spelljammer did and make them feel more inclusive, that there is a larger "world", so to speak, and you are a part of it. I think that ultimately that was what PS was about, but I think that someone coming from FR or GH might have been put off and thus miss out on the great opportunities and originality PS possesses.
ripvanwormer 05-09-07, 06:12 PM	not sure I get what you're saying? :confused: I recall a lot of stuff about Clueless primes in my early books that slowly went away as time passed. Sure, but ironically. It said things like: "It pays to treat primes with respect, even if they've got a load of peculiar ideas. Getting to the planes takes power, and more than a few primes could boil a sod's blood just for looking at him sideways. 'Course, not every prime's powerful, but the problem is, with their funny habits, there's just no way to know. Remember, most primes don't know the lay of the land. They mostly think their tiny world is the center of the universe, and they've never heard of the Rule of Threes or the Unity of Rings, either. They're likely to think that because a thing's got horns, it's evil. They can be easy conies for the bobbers, but real touchy if they learn they've been had, so be careful around a prime, at least until he shows you what he's got." [A Player's Guide to the Planes, page 8] "Outsiders bring with them a lot of peculiar ideas, at least by planar standards. Most of these have to do with notions that their world is the center of the multiverse, that their kingdom is the greatest wonder of the multiverse, or that their god is the greatest power of them all. Planars often make great fun of Outsiders for their wrong-headed beliefs, but primes have their ways of getting revenge against those who give them grief." [A Player's Guide to the Planes, page 31] That is, yeah - of course those who have less experience in planar travel are going to have a less accurate view of the planes than those with more experience. It's like someone who's lived in England all their life is going to have a fuzzier view of the globe than a world traveler. That's not insulting. And note the last line - primes aren't anyone to underestimate. They can be tough, especially if they've made their way to the planes on their own. There is no excuse for being offended by any of this, at least not if you know what "irony" is. The Planescape boxed set was extremely ironic in its tone, as anyone with a sense of humor and a college-level education should suss right away. I have no respect for the whiners here, none at all. Ohmigod, did they just make fun of me? No, of course they didn't. They adopted an affected, jaded tone, sure, but they also paid your PC a complement, if you were paying attention (and there's more on prime advantages that I cut out of the excerpt). And if your character does believe his world is the center of the multiverse, some amount of mocking is appropriate. And no, they never took "digs" at the Forgotten Realms setting. Dragonlance fans have a better argument for taking offense (if they don't understand irony), but Faerunians never got anything but praise for how worldly and knowledgeable they were. It's extremely relevant that of the "two most important people in Sigil" described in the Planescape boxed set, one of them is a prime.
Naderion 05-09-07, 06:17 PM	The view that Sigil is the center and the hub of the whole multiverse is also to be taken with its grain of salt. Though rule/source-books, most planescape stuff I read was actually as much in-game as out-of-character, and usually this is told by people from Sigil. ;) I'm sure the Archons and Baatezu have a different oppinion about being the suburbs of Sigil.
ripvanwormer 05-09-07, 06:22 PM	The view that Sigil is the center and the hub of the whole multiverse is also to be taken with its grain of salt. It's usually told by people from Sigil. ;) Not just a grain of salt - it's explicitly bunk. That's one of the three major premises of the setting. "It's usually upsetting to Prime Material bashers when they hear that their little world isn't the center of the multiverse, which is why they're known to planars as the Clueless. Members of a faction called the Signers might argue otherwise, but smart folks say there's no particular center to the planar multiverse. Rather, it all depends on where you stand. Folks in Sigil see the City of Doors as the center of the multiverse, folks on the Prime Material Plane say their own worlds are the center of the universe, and the efreet brag that the City of Brass is the center of all. The thing is, maybe they're all right and maybe they're all wrong." And it goes on and on along those lines. Along with the Rule of Threes and the Unity of Rings, the Center of the Multiverse paradigm is the setting's main theme (and the Center of the Multiverse theme is listed first). The irony in that quote, in case someone missed it, is that planars call primes "clueless" for having delusions of being the center of everything, when they're (explicitly) deluded in the same way about their own city. That was, in short, a joke. Maybe a little subtle, but everyone really should have spotted it.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-10-07, 04:40 AM	That's not the sort of comment I was referring to, though. Ones like, "the goddess of magic in Faerun is soooo generous" (or something close to that) slipped into the midst of other stuff. Now, that might not seem like a big thing now - but this was in the 2E heyday of the "The FR is high magic and that makes it munchkin!" furor (especially on the part of those displeased by the fact that the FR had been made the flagship setting), so when you read a comment like that, it clearly twigged as, "nice way to pander to the 'FR is munchkin' crowd, there". It was things like that scattered throughout the text which really annoyed me; more to the point, it struck me as unprofessional. Unfortunately, there were frequent one-upsmanship games going on with the books (setting and otherwise) during that period, so it didn't entirely surprise me. (Edit: It probably didn't help that that particular one was drawn to my attention by someone who proceeded to snicker about how it just proved that the FR *was* munchkin because even the Planescape writers were saying so...)
Steely_Dan 05-10-07, 05:03 AM	but this was in the 2E heyday of the "The FR is high magic and that makes it munchkin!" furor that the FR *was* munchkin because even the Planescape writers were saying so...) I don't know where you keep getting this, back in the 2nd edition heyday, Forgotten Realms was neither referred to, or viewed as a high magic/munchkin campaign, it was just one of many TSR campaign settings.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-10-07, 08:02 AM	You weren't around on the internet in the mid-90s, I take it? Because even at that point the "Munchkin FR" spiel was in full force online. And it had circulated well enough offline, for that matter - here, at least.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-10-07, 08:23 AM	Anyhow, leaving the "Planescape can do no wrong" bit behind and returning to the original question... The 2E-3E transition of the FR's cosmology and the general abandoning of the "everything must be on the Wheel" policy did mean a revision to the continuity - but that happened across many fronts for various rules-related reasons, and it wasn't entirely dissimilar to a lot of the "it was that way, now it's this way" changes that occurred when 1E went 2E. Nonhuman paladins, dwarves being wizards and a major source of magical item production, clerics suddenly being able to cut people - there were a huge number of theme changes which reverberated throughout the setting and often made previously-published material obsolete or even goofy looking. (The 2E and earlier books had made a big to-do about NPC X wanting to be class Y but the rules didn't allow it, or how clerics had to go through some ordeal to show them why using bladed weapons wasn't allowed, or whatever - all of which look at least a bit quaint given that those limitations don't actually exist in the 3E rules.)
Steely_Dan 05-10-07, 08:49 AM	You weren't around on the internet in the mid-90s, I take it? Because even at that point the "Munchkin FR" spiel was in full force online. And it had circulated well enough offline, for that matter - here, at least. Okay, fair enough, but where do you get the bashing of FR from the Planescape setting in particular?
sciborg2 05-10-07, 04:16 PM	Anyhow, leaving the "Planescape can do no wrong" bit behind and returning to the original question... I think I've been in favor of it doing wrong sometimes, but that doesn't mean one can just bash it without examples. I think I've shown I'm a PS fan willing to accept/make criticism but there needs to be evidence. On the other hand, I think what I and others are trying to point out is that the setting did not feel welcoming to players coming from other settings. Its something hard to pin down, but I believe the mockery of Primes was part of it. Note that the books mention that anyone can be Clueless, but went more out of their way to present Primes in that fashion...at least as my memory serves. My reason for brining it up was not to bash PS, but rather to think about how it could (and can become) more popular because there is so much depth and greatness there. This wasn't much of a problem for me as I've always been into meta-settings like Spelljammer but it *felt* like it would be a problem for others. And, apparently, it was. This is a nebulous thing, but I think that PS would have been done well to recognize the reaction of those fans and make them more welcome. god, I sound like one those guys reminiscing about Dragon and Dungeon after axing it....did I mention I like teriyaki?
ripvanwormer 05-10-07, 07:33 PM	I think what I and others are trying to point out is that the setting did not feel welcoming to players coming from other settings. Almost all of us came from other settings (I certainly did - I was into Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara long before I knew much of anything about the AD&D planes). People with a sense of humor got the jokes, smiled and laughed, and enjoyed them. I really don't have any sympathy for people who can't take a joke.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-10-07, 07:59 PM	> Okay, fair enough, but where do you get the bashing of FR from the > Planescape setting in particular? > > I think I've been in favor of it doing wrong sometimes, but that doesn't mean > one can just bash it without examples. I think I've shown I'm a PS fan willing > to accept/make criticism but there needs to be evidence. I did just give one example that I can specifically remember, though perhaps you'll understand that after 10+ years I don't happen to have a page number handy anymore. But it wasn't the only jab which, at least in the context of the time, came across as a put-down to other settings. Unfortunately, I don't have an eidetic memory to be able to quote them all back at you after all this time. ;) > On the other hand, I think what I and others are trying to point out is that > the setting did not feel welcoming to players coming from other settings. Exactly. Whether or not these jabs and the whole "clueless" bit were intended as humor or insulting, they came across as the latter to a lot of people, especially given the context of the time. First impressions tend to color your entire perception of something; that wasn't a great first impression for the setting to be making on people. From what has been said, apparently the writers eventually realized that and tried to tone it down - but by that point it was probably too little, too late. Okay, I'll admit - maybe I've viewed Planescape in too harsh a light thanks to those bad first impressions. (There were other things about it which bothered me, admittedly - I wasn't keen on the lingo and I really disliked the highly stylized artwork that they seemed to be so fond of around that time.) I'll even see if the game store has any used copies of the later-period books to see if they're any better. But the original question which was asked has, I think, been addressed sufficiently by this point - edition changes bring all kinds of continuity issues no matter how you slice it; the 3E cosmology changeover made sense for the FR and, all told, was probably one of the less significant changes from a practical gameplay standpoint.
sciborg2 05-10-07, 09:31 PM	I really don't have any sympathy for people who can't take a joke. I don't think its about sympathy so much as marketing.
ArcTan 05-10-07, 10:17 PM	You're really clueless if you didn't notice why this hard-nosed attitude of planar beings was used. Imagine being a body who's familiar with all types of strange creatures. You see them every day, talk with them, make deals with them. And along comes some prime berk and starts to apply his rules, morals/ethics and by definition limitated experiences to the world you know. That's annoying. It's really annoying. Because it doesn't work. You grow tired of explaining it to them, so your attitude grows quite unfriendly. It's the same with people living in big cities who have to deal with people from small towns or villages. But that's just it -- the nasty part was the decision to make Sigil so separate from the Prime worlds and to make Sigil be the big city and the Prime worlds the small villages. It's not like they had to do that.
Gray Richardson 05-11-07, 12:00 AM	But that's just it -- the nasty part was the decision to make Sigil so separate from the Prime worlds and to make Sigil be the big city and the Prime worlds the small villages. It's not like they had to do that.That was not the point, Sigil was a plot device, a jumping off point for planar adventuring. Sigil provided an important role as a central place to meet with access to all the planes (the doors of Sigil) so that parties could hook up, get their clues or adventure hooks, and then travel off to the planes to have their adventures. Different writers may have added different things to Sigil, but it was basically just supposed to be the Casablanca of the planes where there was a lot of intrigue, a lot of people from all over mixing together and providing impetus for the stories and adventures that the DM wanted to spin. Sure, some players and game designers thought that Sigil was pretty interesting in and of itself and focused some of the adventuring right there in Sigil, but really, it was always meant as a way to open up the planes and provide opportunities to get out of Sigil and go exploring.
Skeptical Clown 05-11-07, 03:50 PM	The problem with Planescape isn't that it insulted other settings; you can't hurt the feeling of a game setting. The problem with the setting (at least in the context of how it relates to other settings) is twofold. The first problem is that it diminishes the importance of other settings--if the Prime material plane is just one of a zillion other places adventure is happening, the importance of the actions of the PCs and the history of that world are lessened. The second problem is that it shackles the various settings together. Not only does a setting have to have individual flavor enough to distinguish it and make it worthy of being published, but it also suddenly has to tie back into the planes and all the other settings, and work in a way that is consistent with them. In and of itself, Planescape was a fine setting, but it was too much of a burden for other settings to bear.
ripvanwormer 05-11-07, 04:10 PM	The first problem is that it diminishes the importance of other settings Everything does that. The presence of a nation diminishes the importance of your village; the presence of a continent diminishes the importance of your nation; the presence of a planet diminishes the importance of your continent. And, yes, the presence of a multiverse diminishes the importance of your world. Not only is this not a bad thing, but it's a good and necessary thing. It's good that there's a greater context, new goals to reach for. There are many styles of gaming - in some, low levels are confined only to one immediate area, and as characters gain in power they act on a greater scale. But that's not by any means the only or best way to do things. It's perfectly possible to play a low-level game where the PCs have to act in more than one village, more than one nation, or more than one plane as resources permit. Has anyone, in the history of D&D, ever been angry that they don't feel "special" about saving a village from destruction because there are other villages in the universe? Of course not; if it was an entertaining adventure at the time, there's nothing to regret. Now that you've seen other places, you can go on to save those. With an entire planet, this is even more true; saving a whole world is a suitably epic goal regardless of how many other worlds there are. And, of course, there's nothing from stopping a DM from inventing things that make one particular world or even village more important than all the other ones - some crucial planar axis upon which many other planes depend, or just some critical element in a villain's convoluted scheme. If you hadn't saved Waterdeep that one time, the cancer would have spread to the entire world, and with the power thus gained Graz'zt would have corrupted all worlds. This is really a non-issue. The second problem is that it shackles the various settings together. Not only does a setting have to have individual flavor enough to distinguish it and make it worthy of being published, but it also suddenly has to tie back into the planes and all the other settings, and work in a way that is consistent with them. This sounds like a good argument as long as it's restrained to the sterile realm of pure theory. In practicality, though, this is never a substantial problem. The planes are big and vague, and add little burden to any settings. There were some contradictions - Athas had its own paraelemental planes, for example, which Planescape ignored - but that only proves that the existence of Planescape never forced individual campaign settings to do anything. There's no reason the planes can't contradict themselves, and there's no reason the individual DM can't pick whatever model works best for that specific campaign. In a game that takes place exclusively on Athas or Eberron, you can use that campaign's cosmology, and ignore that cosmology in a campaign that's about world-hopping rather than any individual world. It's an invented problem, created purely to prove that problems exist. In reality, Planescape never limited the creativity of any setting. Quite the opposite - it expands that setting's possibilities.
ArcTan 05-11-07, 05:04 PM	This isn't something you can debate on sterile logical grounds at all. The question is how people *felt* about shackling their campaign settings to Planescape, and, as it turns out, a lot of people didn't like it and were made unhappy by it, which is why WotC changed it. For my part, I liked Planescape best when the actual Prime Material was left vague and undisclosed. Sigil can be Sigil and the Great Wheel can be the Great Wheel without actually saying that any particular campaign setting exists in the Prime Material, and it's probably better that way. It's better for your campaign setting to be itself without running around stepping on the toes of other campaign settings and subtly stealing their turf (look at the backlash from Dragonlance fans when Lord Soth showed up in Ravenloft, for example). It's not just in game settings that I feel this way -- I don't like crossovers, period. I find them to be disrespectful and unnecessary far more often than not. It's like fanfiction -- it's stealing a little bit of the tone and feel someone else worked hard to create in their setting, without doing any of the work for it yourself, and making it very likely that you'll get it wrong.
ripvanwormer 05-12-07, 01:17 PM	This isn't something you can debate on sterile logical grounds at all. In fact, I can and do. I'm much more interested in what people *should* feel than what they *do* feel. Conformity must be enforced at all costs, or anarchy will result. This message has been brought to you by the Harmonium. Crossovers, borrowings, influences - none of those things are "disrespectful" - they're a part of the most venerable literary traditions. Look at the story of the Argonauts, where all the most famous Greek heroes teamed up to go on a quest, Hercules and Orpheus leaving their own stories to adventure with Castor and Pollux and Jason for a while (the first "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"). Or "A Midsummer's Night Dream," where Greek myth merged with English fairy lore (not even the same genre!). Insisting that a given story remain in its sterile little box forever is antithetical to the process of art-making as it's existed for centuries - it's right and proper that characters and themes be recontextualized and given new life from time to time. And, seriously, often a little disrespect (or a lot of disrespect!) is exactly what's needed to keep things from growing too stale. Often things don't deserve any respect, and possibly foremost among those things are RPG worlds, which are meant as sandboxes to play with and deform, not hallowed canons to view at from afar with awe. If you're treating an RPG setting with kid gloves, afraid of tainting it or "doing it wrong," you're doing it wrong. Keith Baker gave you Eberron so that you could take it apart to see how it works, and then put it together again with some of the pieces missing or replaced. Planescape, too, was a toy that was given to us so we could break it. This message has been brought to you by the Xaositects.
sciborg2 05-12-07, 03:05 PM	Rip, you're arguing what people should feel. I think what we are saying on the other side is what people did feel. Yes, to some extent any metacampaign is going to eclipse a single campaign world, but also PS at times went out of its way to make the worlds feel really small. I don't think this was malice, as even at times characters in those settings made note of how their world was but one of many. Of course there are those who just took cursory glances at PS and lay blame on it without any real understanding of it, but I think this is more an examination not to simply find fault but perceptions that people felt. I think that is what ArcTan means that this can't be argued.
ripvanwormer 05-12-07, 03:09 PM	also PS at times went out of its way to make the worlds feel really small. I never thought it did, and I'm dubious that many other people thought so, either. Isn't it possible you're just projecting? Without any formal polling, we may never know for sure. "This book made me feel bad about my D&D campaign" strikes me as the sort of complaint that people ought to be ostracized for making, and probably punished with wedgies and wet willies. Sure, we're all nerds here, but some things are too nerdy even for my blood. I mean, it's all silly: modrons are silly, the factions are silly, alignments are silly, warforged and shifters are silly, the Chosen of Mystra are silly, Krynn, Oerth, and Mystara are full of silliness, liches are silly, the bard class is silly, polyhedron dice are silly, pretending to be elves and dwarves is silly. If you dare take offense when someone lightly points this out I will direct you to the Mooninites, who will pull down your pants and spank you with moon rocks because that's what they do to nerds on the Moon.
sciborg2 05-12-07, 04:34 PM	Is it that different than the way people only mention sources relevant to their viewpoint, dismissing those they don't agree with? For the record, I can't be projecting because I don't feel that way. But I did see a lot of animosity to PS and I'm curious why.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-13-07, 03:51 AM	Here's one of the practical problems which was mentioned earlier: Okay, so all of the other official settings are locked into Planescape's cosmology. Now the Planescape team decides to do something drastic: The Abyss implodes and dumps all of its demons across other planes (just as an extreme example) as part of the Planescape metaplot. Now, not only do all of the other settings which are officially anchored to Planescape have to deal with a missing Abyss in their cosmology, they're also officially stuck with demons rampaging across them - whether or not the designers of those settings really wanted such a scenario. The same problem can occur if one of those anchored settings decides to do something which impacts the planes and boomerangs around to smack the other settings with consequences that they didn't want. This was one of the reasons for detaching the FR and giving it its own cosmology - the FR team no longer has to worry about what other setting/core teams do with their cosmology or what events they decide to orchestrate, since it doesn't impact the FR.
Skeptical Clown 05-13-07, 08:15 AM	There's no reason the planes can't contradict themselves, and there's no reason the individual DM can't pick whatever model works best for that specific campaign. In a game that takes place exclusively on Athas or Eberron, you can use that campaign's cosmology, and ignore that cosmology in a campaign that's about world-hopping rather than any individual world. This at least is true, and it's exactly what WOTC has decided to do--they develop each world with its own cosmology, and ignore the Great Wheel cosmology. If people want to link it to these others worlds, they're free to do so. That's about how it should be.
ripvanwormer 05-13-07, 10:28 AM	Here's one of the practical problems which was mentioned earlier: Okay, so all of the other official settings are locked into Planescape's cosmology. Now the Planescape team decides to do something drastic: The Abyss implodes and dumps all of its demons across other planes (just as an extreme example) as part of the Planescape metaplot. The problem with "extreme examples" like that is that they're easy to dismiss. That's not a practical problem. That's something that would never, ever happen. You might as well say something like "WotC declares that the Plane of Shadow explodes on to every world it touches, infecting every world with a shadow curse." Since every world is officially linked to the Plane of Shadow, that's just as much of a danger as your Abyss example. Or maybe they'll come up with a metaplot about the mysterious world between planes that vestiges come from, so vestiges are coming to life everywhere. Or maybe the Far Realm "implodes" and releases all its horrors on to every world (maybe Xoriat "runs into it," creating a rupture). There's no shortage of ways they could arbitrarily alter every campaign setting, single cosmology or not. But they're not inclined to do that, single cosmology or not. The Abyss is not going to "implode" because the planes don't work that way. Yes, if you think hard enough you can come up with extreme examples that fit your point of view, but it doesn't help your argument to do so. The fact of the matter is that in reality, it was never a problem in 2e that the settings were assumed to share some common planes. It didn't hurt them in any measurable way, and I think it greatly improved them. That's not to say that the settings never influenced each other, only that it wasn't a problem when that happened. Another important thing for me to make clear is that I don't have any problem with the idea of multiple cosmologies, and I didn't say a bad thing about them at any point in this thread. I prefer a single cosmology for those campaigns that intend to move between worlds a lot, simply because it's a lot more convenient and coherent. It's a lot easier to create the very things that Neutronium Dragon is claiming are "problems" - that is, world-spanning plots that connect the campaign worlds into a single coherent setting. In that sort of campaign, being able to do so is essential. As I said, it's possible to do so with the multiple-cosmology model, but it's not as convenient and I think it's aesthetically ugly. If a group likes both Eberron and the Forgotten Realms and wants to use both in the same campaign, it makes sense to give them a common set of planes in order to integrate them better.
sciborg2 05-13-07, 12:46 PM	That's about how it should be. I think what should be is options to link or not link...but FR's long historic connections to the Great Wheel just, to me, make the Tree useful for nothing more than a new transitive plane connecting Ao's servants. Others who came to FR later may not care, but to those of us from way back it was a little jarring/unnecessary. YMMV. As for PS, it did not assert that the worlds were connected, they were connected long, long before that. Ed Greenwood decided to connect FR when he wrote his Three Wizards articles, and even in 1e we have the World Serpent Inn (where even low-level characters traveled the planes) resurrected in Dragon. At the same time, PS created a needless division between multisphere and singlesphere powers, the latter the gods of campaign settings that were generally weaker than those whose worshippers spanned multiple worlds. This is a needless marginalization, when it would be easier to have these gods simply have interest in multiple worlds or drawing large amounts of power from magic rich worlds like Toril and Oerth. Of course, making Nerull the central master of Carceri in 3e MotP was a swing too far in the other direction...
ArcTan 05-13-07, 05:48 PM	The fact of the matter is that in reality, it was never a problem in 2e that the settings were assumed to share some common planes. It didn't hurt them in any measurable way, and I think it greatly improved them. That's not to say that the settings never influenced each other, only that it wasn't a problem when that happened. It may not have been a problem *for you*. It did annoy a lot of people. The primary problem being that even though a DM is supposed to have ultimate authority for what the world of his campaign looks like, it's pretty hard to completely deprogram a fanboy-ish player who's obsessed with reading and memorizing setting material and sees the campaign as a vehicle for living out the books he's read. In other words, yes, it was really damn annoying that eventually any game you ran would have someone just itching for the opportunity to plane shift to Sigil and explore the Great Wheel and turn the game into a Planescape campaign. And the way Planescape was written, it encouraged the idea that you could do this *in any setting*, even if it was a homebrew "vague D&D" setting that wasn't explicitly Oerth or Krynn or Faerun. Another important thing for me to make clear is that I don't have any problem with the idea of multiple cosmologies, and I didn't say a bad thing about them at any point in this thread. I prefer a single cosmology for those campaigns that intend to move between worlds a lot, simply because it's a lot more convenient and coherent. It's a lot easier to create the very things that Neutronium Dragon is claiming are "problems" - that is, world-spanning plots that connect the campaign worlds into a single coherent setting. In that sort of campaign, being able to do so is essential. As I said, it's possible to do so with the multiple-cosmology model, but it's not as convenient and I think it's aesthetically ugly. If a group likes both Eberron and the Forgotten Realms and wants to use both in the same campaign, it makes sense to give them a common set of planes in order to integrate them better. It depends. Some people like aesthetically "ugly". There are different kinds of stories to tell -- one kind of story is "Both our worlds are embedded in this one, single Larger World that is the true reality" -- some people absolutely love this kind of plot and are always looking for ways to break out to the Larger World and want the Larger World to be a knowable, consistent, coherent thing. And some people hate that, and want the multiverse to be a mysterious, unpredictable, essentially unknowable place. So then the "We're in a completely different world where *none* of the same rules apply" model makes more sense. What I want to protest is the idea that just because some people like a "coherent cosmology" better, that a campaign or story that depends on a "coherent cosmology" must be a better one. I kind of hate that idea -- I like the idea of What's Out There being way too confusing and bizarre to ever write down in one single book.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-13-07, 06:15 PM	> That's not a practical problem. That's something that would never, ever > happen. While not as extreme as the example I gave, those sorts of problems did manifest when everything was crammed together; they did so on a smaller scale and frequently enough to be an annoyance to the FR team. And just because you think that nothing that extreme would ever happen doesn't mean it wouldn't - particularly given the propensity of some authors and designers to pull that sort of setting-shaking stuff. (Just look at how many areas of the FR have been more or less trashed during novels. Now imagine that happening in Planescape. And it affects every other setting too...)
sciborg2 05-13-07, 07:54 PM	In other words, yes, it was really damn annoying that eventually any game you ran would have someone just itching for the opportunity to plane shift to Sigil and explore the Great Wheel and turn the game into a Planescape campaign. And the way Planescape was written, it encouraged the idea that you could do this *in any setting*, even if it was a homebrew "vague D&D" setting that wasn't explicitly Oerth or Krynn or Faerun. You're kidding right? You seem to have a lot of problems in your gaming experiences, since every complaint you have seems to come from this idea of forcing people to act a certain way so that you can enjoy D&D.
ripvanwormer 05-13-07, 08:21 PM	The primary problem being that even though a DM is supposed to have ultimate authority for what the world of his campaign looks like, it's pretty hard to completely deprogram a fanboy-ish player Tabletop RPGs are meant to be collaborative; it's the DMs' responsibility to cater to the players' interests as well as their own. This goes both ways: the players certainly shouldn't be annoying everyone by insisting that "you're doing it wrong" because things aren't 100% official, but a DM shouldn't entirely ignore the players' interests and deride them for being fanboyish and obsessed just because they have different ideas. I don't know if you realize that everything you're saying applies in the other direction, too - what of the DM who wants to run a cross-worlds campaign but has to deal with a "fanboyish" player obsessed with a world's pristine and unsullied nature? Frankly, you shouldn't be talking about "deprogramming" anyone - it's all about communication and compromise, with all sides striving to let everyone have the most fun. Of course, some people just shouldn't be playing together, because what they want out of the game is completely different. Nothing WotC does is going to change that. And some people hate that, and want the multiverse to be a mysterious, unpredictable, essentially unknowable place. This is a false dichotomy - the conflict you're trying to draw between coherency and mystery doesn't exist. Things can certainly be drawn in simple enough strokes to catch the imagination without being entirely knowable or predictable. There is, in fact, nothing glaringly mysterious or unknowable about the Eberron or Faerunian cosmologies as written, and stringing them together by the Plane of Shadow does nothing to increase their mysteriousness. I'm not saying that they're bad, only that any "mystery" about them has to be added by the DM. The Planescape cosmology, on the other hand, does come with many great mysteries and enigmas embedded in it - the mysterious race that chiseled out the third layer of Pandemonium, the lost pantheon that hid away the True Words, the death-worshipers who created Citadel Cavitius, the nature of the fourth level of reality, the destiny of those who've risen beyond the status of greater gods, the question of what lies beyond Chronias, the riddle of Ghoresh Chasm, the creation of the Black Abyss demiplane, the original dimension of the Keepers and the metacosmos that apparently exists on the "other side" of the Inner Planes, just to name a handful of the lesser-known ones. As for "confusing and bizarre," I think I'm the one who's arguing for that - what could be more confusing and bizarre than a single cosmology that encompasses the myriad needs of Eberron, Planescape, Greek, Egyptian, and Chinese mythology, the many lands of Toril, and much more all at once? Giving each setting its own segregated system is much less confusing, less bizarre. Not worse, but less bizarre. So, yes - if I'm looking for a cosmology that's more bizarre, contradictory, mysterious, and everything else, I'll go with the basic 2e structure modified by the coolest new ideas and fan-created ideas, which manages to be all those things while still having an aesthetically pleasing symmetry and geometry that can entice the mind with its cool appearance as well as its confounding and enigmatic features. What I want to protest is the idea that just because some people like a "coherent cosmology" better, that a campaign or story that depends on a "coherent cosmology" must be a better one. It's a pretty common thing on the internet for people engaging in debates to try to twist things around so that they're clearly on the defensive. The thing you're protesting exists only in your own imagination, however. I never said anything "must be a better one." I'm advancing a particular point of view, and pointing out the flaws in your rhetoric. You may conceivably feel like you're on the defensive because of my intimidating debating prowess (Rip poses dramatically), but you are not on the defensive because I said your preferred cosmological structure was inferior. This thread seems to be primarily about criticizing Planescape, which actually makes you the "aggressor." That's not a bad thing by any means, but trying to act like the thread is about me criticizing a multiple-cosmology set-up is a bit disingenuous. Or, at least, it would be if you were doing it on purpose, which you obviously aren't. It's very easy to convince yourself that you're the beleaguered defender of diversity, because it's so much easier to argue from that perspective than to claim that something (Planescape, in this instance) is objectively flawed. This is difficult to do, because as everyone obviously doesn't agree with you, you're forced to either claim that those who disagree with you aren't thinking properly or resort to weaker arguments like, "Oh, it would have been more popular if..." I love attacking things, personally, so if I were doing so I wouldn't shy away from that fact. I would say, "Yes, your ideas are terrible and here is why I think so." But that's not my purpose here; I have no desire to attack the basic idea of multiple cosmologies. I think multiple cosmologies are awesome, actually, if they're sufficiently varied and interesting - but for the core worlds in a single campaign, I think it helps to bring them under a single umbrella so that their themes can be more closely tied together.
ripvanwormer 05-13-07, 08:29 PM	And just because you think that nothing that extreme would ever happen doesn't mean it wouldn't You're absolutely right. However, it didn't ever happen in the past, so what I said about there not actually being a problem is true. Trying to reconcile the handful of cross-worlds events might have been "problematic" for some designers, but trying to keep everything separate is just as problematic for others (for example, FR designers keep slipping and accidentally or on purpose mentioning Great Wheel planes in FR products). While you're right that, in theory, someone on WotC might go insane and decide to destroy all the worlds at once for no particular reason, nothing about the cosmological set-up will prevent them from doing so if this is the course they've decided on. Therefore, using this to advocate any particular cosmological set-up is pointless.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-13-07, 10:44 PM	Depending on how you define "it didn't happen in the past", suddenly finding Sigil and its attendant complications plonked down into all of their cosmologies could be considered a drastic change. ;) But the design team found it to be problematic even when dealing with smaller events. And as a general principle, it remains a bad idea for the design team of one setting to be having to deal with fallout from the decisions of any other setting's design team. It's particularly a particularly bad idea when you have one team (the Planescape/planar bunch) able to directly impact every other setting the way they could. But since that concept seems unacceptable (they should just have to lump it, from the sound of things), look back in the thread for several of the other issues which are created by everything being corralled into one cosmology whether it likes it or not - most of the issues revolving around how they limit or impact a setting from a theme standpoint.
ChampionofRajaat 05-15-07, 02:44 PM	I’ve been following this thread and now have finally decided to enter my two cents. Really, what we have here IMO, is a debate over Aesthetics. In one camp we have Rip, who chooses to make his argument on “logical sterile grounds”. Which is perfectly fine as long as you adhere to a Aristotelian theory of Aesthetics. People who believe in this particular philosophy of Art believe that there is an ultimate “truth’, essentially a set of guideline to what makes something beautiful. A lot of people adhere to this e of philosophy without even knowing it. (although I’m sure from reading frequent Rip post that he is at least aware of this philosophy, even if he doesn’t claim to prescribe to it.). This concept was heavily influenced by Plato’s theory of forms, and although most modern thinkers have abandoned that notion the legacy of Aristotelian Aesthetics still remains strong in many artistic and intellectual communities, particularly with those who study literature for a living such as myself. What we have on the other side, advanced by various posters is a late Victorian model of Art advanced by writers and artist such as Oscar Wilde, G.B. Shaw, and Cezanne. This movement which has been called the Decadence movement, or even more simply the Aesthetic primarily deals with how people feel. In fact this movement is fundamentally a continuation of the Romantic movement which adheres to much the same philosophy. Rip argued in one of his post (sorry I couldn’t find it to cite) “that he has no interest in what people do feel but what they should feel”. That is perfectly logical for a Aristotelian but a complete anathema for someone who adheres to a Romanic philosophy which deal wholeheartedly in what people do feel. For a Romantic the connections to the Planescape Setting makes them uncomfortable not because it is illogical but because it simply makes them feel away that they do not wish to feel about Dungeons and Dragons Campaign Settings. Their argument has nothing to do (even though they my disingenuously argue it does) with the practical implications of such a linked cosmology. There’s another philosophy which a intend to advance here in this post that has yet to be proposed. That is a Marxian view of Art. Underneath all the flowery words an eloquent arguments this thread is truly an argument of one campaign setting over another. Whither you agree with that statement or not it is the premise that I’m going to advance my argument on that premise. Campaign Settings are in fact living, collaborative works of art, and according to Marx all Art must make “some social, political, or philosophical commentary.” Unlike the Aristotelian camp this commentary does not have to fit any specific guide lines, but unlike the pure Aesthetics Art should definitely contain mimesis. This is why I believe certain settings are objectively “better” than others. The better settings are Planescape, and Dark Sun, and Dragonlance. The worse are (and I know this will ruffle a few feathers, but I’m fine with that) Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. The other settings such as Ebberron, Ravenloft, and Mystara I don’t know enough about to comment on. First, Planescape is undisputedly the most philosophical of all the settings. This is embodied with the various factions, and the various outer planes. Often a Planescape game can dissolve into a philosophical debate which I believe it is the purpose of good Art to cause people to do. Second, Dark Sun deals with major themes that actually effect our world today, ecological irresponsibility, corruption of unbridled power, and amorality vs. involvement. Dragonlance I believe it is least profound of the settings mentioned so far I have several reasons for including it. Dragonlance deals with the dichotomy between good and evil, and while this may be cliché in and of itself, the way the setting approaches it is not. Good and evil characters fall in love with each other, pure light is a blinding as the darkest evil, neutrality is a viable alternative, good characters disagree and evil fight each other (especially the elves). I personally feel that Forgotten Realms is a hackneyed with out and real redeeming factors. It contains everything in D&D that is overused and overrated. (i.e. Drow, crazed wizards, Elven sub races, and the list truly goes on.) Possibly I am just a disgruntled Forgotten Realms detractor but I think it is a uncoordinated mishmash of earth like cultures, infused with magic, and given no real thematic direction. Of course there was the time of troubles, but that’s far more mythological than commentary. I guess that was more than two cents...
ripvanwormer 05-15-07, 04:07 PM	suddenly finding Sigil and its attendant complications plonked down into all of their cosmologies could be considered a drastic change. Not by any reasonable standard, no, it's not a drastic or even a minor change. Its portals are rare and normally unknown in the vastness of a world. And Sigil continues to implicitly exist in every cosmology - again, with no particular complications. It continues to have canonical connections to Faerun in D&D 3.5, for example, with no harm to the setting that I can detect. But since that concept seems unacceptable (they should just have to lump it, from the sound of things) Well, essentially. I don't think it's the burden you're trying to pretend it was.
ripvanwormer 05-15-07, 04:16 PM	In one camp we have Rip, who chooses to make his argument on “logical sterile grounds”. No, that was me characterizing Skeptical Clown's argument. I was explicitly contrasting that "sterile, logical" approach with my own - Skeptical's argument seemed to me to be entirely within the realm of pure aesthetics, divorced from the practicality of how things actually played out in practice (where the various settings did manage to be distinct and often contradictory even with an implied metasetting or three for those who wanted to use it). ArcTan apparently misunderstood this as you have, and I replied to him with words heavily tinged with irony. My argument is actually filthy and pragmatic. Rip argued in one of his post (sorry I couldn’t find it to cite) “that he has no interest in what people do feel but what they should feel”. Right; this was irony. Never take me seriously. Well, irony with a bit of truth, or truth masked with irony - anyway, there was irony, which gives me diplomatic immunity from having to take responsibility for a position. I actually do care what people feel, but I can't really argue about it, so I argue about whatever's handy.
Skeptical Clown 05-15-07, 05:03 PM	It's true, but only to a point. I would argue that given that we are discussing a game, aesthetics are of primary importance--are in fact, utterly pragmatic. Games are played for fun, and the second they stop being fun, they're a waste of time. Fun is the only salient metric I think there is for evaluating something in a game. All other aspects of the game and its setting ultimately are important only insofar as they have an effect on how fun the game is. Which is a good thing, because the D&D setting (a term that can be used only very loosely anyway, in comparison with many other RPG settings) is bloated and contradictory. Anyone who wants to use it MUST pick and choose the elements they like, because there's just no other way to go about it. So pick that which is most fun. And yes, I think that WOTC probably should focus on products that they think are going to add to the overall fun players can have, rather than worry about ironing out inconsistencies in the dark recesses of the game universe.
Naderion 05-15-07, 06:23 PM	I would argue, that in the end, with really everything in art and entertainment, it's not really important how you do it, or even what you do, but how it works out in the end. Though it sounds paradox, too much realistic acuracy usually just does not feel real but instead artificial. The real 'product' is not the finished work itself, but the influence it has on the audience. More often than not, NOT being realistic leads to more belivable results than the other way. As an artist, and storytelling and thus adventure-writing and world-building are art, you don't want to create an exact copy of the image you want the audience to percieve, but to make the them see and more importantly feel the things you want to express inside their mind. You can't really define asthetics though the means used, but only by the effect the final work has on the audience. I personally feel that Forgotten Realms is a hackneyed with out and real redeeming factors. It contains everything in D&D that is overused and overrated. (i.e. Drow, crazed wizards, Elven sub races, and the list truly goes on.) Possibly I am just a disgruntled Forgotten Realms detractor but I think it is a uncoordinated mishmash of earth like cultures, infused with magic, and given no real thematic direction. Of course there was the time of troubles, but that’s far more mythological than commentary. This is exactly how I see Faerûn, but amazingly, I don't think this is the setting weakness, but it's great strength that sets it "above" other setting. If you prefer the High Fantasy Style, where one simple man becomes the deciding factor in the eternal cosmical struggle between good and evil, sure then the Realms are really useless for such a campaign. But if you prefer the Sword and Sorcery style, where everything happens between "You and Me", and "They" don't play any part at all, then themed settings just don't work. You can't capture the spirit of these worlds without taking part in the cosmic plot. Personally, I don't really care for campaigns that are 'big scale' with world shaking events, but for the private and personal issues of the characters. Rescuing my neighbor's dougter from 4 gnolls over the course of 4 sessions is much more exciting to me than to fight at the gates of the capital city to prevent the extinction of humanity.
Skeptical Clown 05-15-07, 08:11 PM	Er... I admit I find your assertion backward, Naderion. The Forgotten Realms is a High Fantasy setting by design. There are any number of evil organizations threatening to greatly damage the world every week in Faerun, leaving ample opportunity for the scads of adventurers wandering around to find someone to thwart. Faerun can pretty comfortably accomodate a wide variety of levels of that type of play. Sword & Sorcery would be a little more incredulous. The strength of Forgotten Realms isn't its backstory; its the pliability and familiarity of the setting. It's a vast setting, so vast that many of the regions are underdeveloped, yet still have scads of information available to build a campaign from. Plus, many people have at least a little familiarity with the Forgotten Realms--if not through previous D&D experience, then through novels, or video games. It makes it easier to bring players into it.
The Ubbergeek 05-16-07, 12:52 AM	hey, why the backstory of Forgotten Realms would worse than Dragonlance or Greyhawk or Mystara, really? Are we foolish for liking the setting for it's artistic side too? :rolleyes:
ArcTan 05-24-07, 10:11 PM	It's true, but only to a point. I would argue that given that we are discussing a game, aesthetics are of primary importance--are in fact, utterly pragmatic. Games are played for fun, and the second they stop being fun, they're a waste of time. Fun is the only salient metric I think there is for evaluating something in a game. All other aspects of the game and its setting ultimately are important only insofar as they have an effect on how fun the game is. Which is a good thing, because the D&D setting (a term that can be used only very loosely anyway, in comparison with many other RPG settings) is bloated and contradictory. Anyone who wants to use it MUST pick and choose the elements they like, because there's just no other way to go about it. So pick that which is most fun. And yes, I think that WOTC probably should focus on products that they think are going to add to the overall fun players can have, rather than worry about ironing out inconsistencies in the dark recesses of the game universe. Then let's put it like this -- Planescape fans or fans of Planescape-type games who *want* to be able to say that Toril, Krynn, Oerth, Athas and Eberron are all spinning around as part of the Great Wheel can have a book that says that (given that WotC doesn't think the Planescape property itself is profitable anymore, they can make up this info and put it on planewalker.org or somewhere). FR or Eberron fans who don't like the Great Wheel can have books that completely ignore the Great Wheel and say things that are blatantly contradictory to the Great Wheel. As the books that both design teams are putting out, in fact, do. Then let the market decide. (Of course, I'm arguing this backhandedly because the market has, in fact, decided. You can argue that it hasn't, and that a Planescape-style approach to unifying all the settings would sell like hotcakes today and WotC is stupid for failing to recognize it, but that's kind of a different matter to be argued on different grounds.) The main thing being that while there's nothing wrong with people who like crossovers or giant meta-settings liking them off over there in their corner, I don't see why my setting books *must* waste page-space on them if I don't like crossovers and meta-settings and find that they detract from the setting itself. The FR books don't have information on how to play a campaign where the characters pop from FR onto modern-day Earth and have to drive cars and shoot guns. Some people might like such an idea for a setting -- hell, I might like it, if it were lighthearted enough -- but it doesn't have to be in the main campaign setting book, or part of the setting.
ArcTan 05-24-07, 10:20 PM	But that's not my purpose here; I have no desire to attack the basic idea of multiple cosmologies. I think multiple cosmologies are awesome, actually, if they're sufficiently varied and interesting - but for the core worlds in a single campaign, I think it helps to bring them under a single umbrella so that their themes can be more closely tied together. Then my point is that WotC should treat the cross-worlds campaign as the exception rather than the rule, and therefore not hamstring the development of their campaign settings in such a way as to facilitate cross-worlds campaigns.
sciborg2 05-25-07, 03:36 PM	(Of course, I'm arguing this backhandedly because the market has, in fact, decided. You can argue that it hasn't, and that a Planescape-style approach to unifying all the settings would sell like hotcakes today and WotC is stupid for failing to recognize it, but that's kind of a different matter to be argued on different grounds.) The settings were unified far, far before Planescape. Read the 1e Manual of the Planes. So that whole connected worlds thing was popular for decades. I don't see why my setting books *must* waste page-space on them if I don't like crossovers and meta-settings and find that they detract from the setting itself Who suggested this? :confused: Notice Athas never mentions the Outer Planes much but FR goes on and on about planar connections before the Tree. FR was designed to relate to the planes, and it made its influence felt. Mystra fighting off armies of Hell, blessing patches of ground in Gehnna. A Lord of Nine becomng Gargauth? The best reasoning for the tree is the safety of the core cosmos from asinine decisions like making Lloth a greater power.
XHereticX 05-25-07, 11:48 PM	I’ve been following this thread and now have finally decided to enter my two cents. Really, what we have here IMO, is a debate over Aesthetics. In one camp we have Rip, who chooses to make his argument on “logical sterile grounds”. Which is perfectly fine as long as you adhere to a Aristotelian theory of Aesthetics. People who believe in this particular philosophy of Art believe that there is an ultimate “truth’, essentially a set of guideline to what makes something beautiful. A lot of people adhere to this e of philosophy without even knowing it. (although I’m sure from reading frequent Rip post that he is at least aware of this philosophy, even if he doesn’t claim to prescribe to it.). This concept was heavily influenced by Plato’s theory of forms, and although most modern thinkers have abandoned that notion the legacy of Aristotelian Aesthetics still remains strong in many artistic and intellectual communities, particularly with those who study literature for a living such as myself. What we have on the other side, advanced by various posters is a late Victorian model of Art advanced by writers and artist such as Oscar Wilde, G.B. Shaw, and Cezanne. This movement which has been called the Decadence movement, or even more simply the Aesthetic primarily deals with how people feel. In fact this movement is fundamentally a continuation of the Romantic movement which adheres to much the same philosophy. Rip argued in one of his post (sorry I couldn’t find it to cite) “that he has no interest in what people do feel but what they should feel”. That is perfectly logical for a Aristotelian but a complete anathema for someone who adheres to a Romanic philosophy which deal wholeheartedly in what people do feel. For a Romantic the connections to the Planescape Setting makes them uncomfortable not because it is illogical but because it simply makes them feel away that they do not wish to feel about Dungeons and Dragons Campaign Settings. Their argument has nothing to do (even though they my disingenuously argue it does) with the practical implications of such a linked cosmology. There’s another philosophy which a intend to advance here in this post that has yet to be proposed. That is a Marxian view of Art. Underneath all the flowery words an eloquent arguments this thread is truly an argument of one campaign setting over another. Whither you agree with that statement or not it is the premise that I’m going to advance my argument on that premise. Campaign Settings are in fact living, collaborative works of art, and according to Marx all Art must make “some social, political, or philosophical commentary.” Unlike the Aristotelian camp this commentary does not have to fit any specific guide lines, but unlike the pure Aesthetics Art should definitely contain mimesis. This is why I believe certain settings are objectively “better” than others. The better settings are Planescape, and Dark Sun, and Dragonlance. The worse are (and I know this will ruffle a few feathers, but I’m fine with that) Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. The other settings such as Ebberron, Ravenloft, and Mystara I don’t know enough about to comment on. First, Planescape is undisputedly the most philosophical of all the settings. This is embodied with the various factions, and the various outer planes. Often a Planescape game can dissolve into a philosophical debate which I believe it is the purpose of good Art to cause people to do. Second, Dark Sun deals with major themes that actually effect our world today, ecological irresponsibility, corruption of unbridled power, and amorality vs. involvement. Dragonlance I believe it is least profound of the settings mentioned so far I have several reasons for including it. Dragonlance deals with the dichotomy between good and evil, and while this may be cliché in and of itself, the way the setting approaches it is not. Good and evil characters fall in love with each other, pure light is a blinding as the darkest evil, neutrality is a viable alternative, good characters disagree and evil fight each other (especially the elves). I personally feel that Forgotten Realms is a hackneyed with out and real redeeming factors. It contains everything in D&D that is overused and overrated. (i.e. Drow, crazed wizards, Elven sub races, and the list truly goes on.) Possibly I am just a disgruntled Forgotten Realms detractor but I think it is a uncoordinated mishmash of earth like cultures, infused with magic, and given no real thematic direction. Of course there was the time of troubles, but that’s far more mythological than commentary. I guess that was more than two cents... Yeah, I admit the new cosmology system makes inter-setting travel rather...ugly. I don't wanna be running into a million nine hells, a million seldarine courts, a million egyptian pantheons, and etc.
Gray Richardson 05-26-07, 12:39 AM	Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods dealt with the subject of multiple versions of gods in a very intriguing way. The people that migrated to America brought their gods with them. Over time, the gods adapted to an American way of life. Odin became a grifter con-man. Chernobog (remember him from the Night on Bald Mountain segment of Fantasia?) became a slaughterhouse worker. Anubis and Thoth became morticians at a funeral home. There were still other versions of these gods in other parts of the world that were separate incarnations. At one point the character runs into a different Odin when he travels to Europe. I personally enjoy the idea of heterogeneous incarnations of deities found in different spheres/different lands. I have no problem at all with infinite different versions of the same gods appearing on alternate worlds. But then again, I grew up reading a lot of alternate history fiction and science fiction. I loved H Beam Pipers alternate worlds stories, and Heinlein's Job, and Number of the Beast, Bruce Sterling's Difference Engine, and the stories of Poul Anderson, Orson Scott Card, SP Somtow, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc. I ate up comics like the X-Men, Exiles, V for Vendetta, Grimjack, and especially the Adventures of Luther Arkwright. I loved shows like the Mirror Universe episodes of Star Trek, and Sliders, and any show or movie that involved alternate timelines. So I am very comfortable with the concept. But I certainly understand if that is beyond some people's comfort zone.
sciborg2 05-26-07, 03:00 PM	I think the ultimate contention between people is the idea that a supplement changes the reality of our games. While its fun to believe our PCs exist in the same cosmology, its hardly the case or hardly necessary. I suspect this why we argue so vehemently over canon, as if any of us will accept someone else's viewpoint and change our home-games. :)
Aseran 05-29-07, 12:36 PM	If I may add my two cents on the matter. I like to subscribe, personally, to the idea that all D&D takes place in one "multiverse", because it brings things together in a neat way. However, I also feel that FR and Eberron benefit from not being bound to the core cosmology. What I like to define it as is, the layout and nature of the Planes depend largely on where you stand. Since the Planes themselves are infinite and unknowable by definition, and their nature goes beyond any sort of neat little arrangement, the written, organized cosmologies I regard as creations of the denizens of the setting itself, to bring some small rationalization of their nature to mortal minds. So if you're from Eberron, the Planes are like great celestial bodies that orbit. If you're from Faerun, they branch out from the Prime into the realms of the gods. And if you're from Sigil, it all just kind of rolls out from the center there into infinity. But the nature of the Planes themselves, if you notice, don't really differentiate dramatically, and with a bit of shuffling one could intertwine the cosmologies, and define them as just variants of the same infinite nature of these places. Granted, it's still a bit of a stretch, but if you really want to bring them all together, that's your option.
ArcTan 05-30-07, 05:10 AM	If what you mean is that, on a practical basis, "People who want to play in a defined setting ignore the other settings and people who want a crossover find some way to make the crossover work", then I'm all for it.
sciborg2 05-30-07, 11:35 AM	A couple of lines here and there about portals to Sigil and the World Serpent Inn aren't so horrible they need to be omitted from publication - though that applies moreso to FR as a nod to those of us who recall when the setting was a planar nexus. Eberron's lack of definitive gods makes it's complete isolation much more understandable. I'd never try to jam Eberron into the Wheel personally.