It is possible, but I wouldn't count on it anytime soon. We know that they will be releasing a campaign setting every year, and that pretty much every campaign setting has someone in development who wants to have it updated. This year is Forgotten Realms. Next year is Ebberon. After that, just about any campaign setting that they still have the rights to could be released.
But, why should they bring a old setting back and not realease a new one... both setting that you mention (F.R. and Ebberon) were the two that got support during the 3rd edition.
I would really loved to see it back as nothing else... but to be truth i am not very optimistic...
But, why should they bring a old setting back and not realease a new one... both setting that you mention (F.R. and Ebberon) were the two that got support during the 3rd edition.
I would really loved to see it back as nothing else... but to be truth i am not very optimistic...
As I said, pretty much every D&D setting has some proponent for the setting in the company. All you have to do is pray that one of the Planescape guys wins the thumb war tournament, or w/e they do, that decides which setting they will release after Eberron(although truthfully I'm expecting 2010 to be Dark Sun, but there is no solid evidence at this time).
On another side.... New settings start clean, fresh slate - but they are a gamble, too. It is not sure that they wil caught up (Birthright was a 'newfangled thing' and didn't caught...).
We know the Blood War is gone with the new cosmology though something similiar could take place. Also Sigil gets a reference in the core books.
The Manual of the Planes should provide the bulk of the information we'd need to run a Planescape campaign. After all that we'd just need some Planescape-themed adventures and maybe a sourcebook speficically for Sigil.
Planescape is one of the odder campaign settings because it is the narrowest in focus (Sigil) and overlaps with pretty much all other campaign settings due to its nature. Spelljammer is a bit more involved only because it requires extra mechanics and covers a setting (magic space travel) that isn't covered in core rules. The core rules already cover/discuss the various planes and planar travel.
With the way 4e is being done we may not seen Planescape as a full campaign setting but we may see sourcebooks that let us do it. The bulk of the Planescape campaign setting was always Sigil and the Blood War.
We know the Blood War is gone with the new cosmology though something similiar could take place. Also Sigil gets a reference in the core books.
The Manual of the Planes should provide the bulk of the information we'd need to run a Planescape campaign. After all that we'd just need some Planescape-themed adventures and maybe a sourcebook speficically for Sigil.
I really doubt it... without the great wheel, the known pantheons, the factions, blood war could not be a planescape setting...
I am not the one of the purist that demand to be exactly as it was and a refreshing hand it would be really welcome... but without the above elements there cant be planescape.
Planescape is one of the odder campaign settings because it is the narrowest in focus (Sigil) and overlaps with pretty much all other campaign settings due to its nature.
I disagree. I think it is quite the opposite. Sigil is just a base, a very strong element but the flavor of the setting is what is around the city, the whole universe.
ps. i would be interesting to see feywild or shadowfell in assuming 4th edition planescape.
"Sigil The City of Doors" so I think we will be seeing something on it even if its not a complete setting, maybe a city write up in Manual of the Planes
I really doubt it... without the great wheel, the known pantheons, the factions, blood war could not be a planescape setting...
I am not the one of the purist that demand to be exactly as it was and a refreshing hand it would be really welcome... but without the above elements there cant be planescape.
I disagree. I think it is quite the opposite. Sigil is just a base, a very strong element but the flavor of the setting is what is around the city, the whole universe.
ps. i would be interesting to see feywild or shadowfell in assuming 4th edition planescape.
It's the kind of setting that actualy could thrive still with a different cosmologic setting. What was Planescape about? The planes, monsters, etc... Or instead ideas, concepts, philosophies?
Reimagined, 2,0... But is that bad?
It's the kind of setting that actualy could thrive still with a different cosmologic setting. What was Planescape about? The planes, monsters, etc... Or instead ideas, concepts, philosophies?
Reimagined, 2,0... But is that bad?
For me it was ideologies, concepts and philosophies... Actually i think it was/is the most mature setting that the tsr/wizards published.
If they release a planes setting with these values, even if it isnt the original planescape i would be happy!
What I would love to see is a Sigil book kind of like Plotus. You have a city which is a planar hub of comers and travel with every type of race, and creature in existence, it Babylon 5 for a fantasy setting.
Not to mention, the less silly aspects of Spelljammer could be rolled into this setting.
Not to mention, the less silly aspects of Spelljammer could be rolled into this setting.
Interesting idea; what would be the effects of a completely merged Planescape + Spelljammer setting?
1- FR
2- Eberron
3- Planescape
4- Dragonlance
5- Something new, maybe another competition.
If this was the case I'd be a happy man.
My prediction which is a complete guess (although I do hope I'm right) is:
1- FR
2- Eberron
3- Planescape
4- Dragonlance
5- Something new, maybe another competition.
If this was the case I'd be a happy man.
I hope you're wrong about Dragonlance, Jimbo. Dragonlance is the one setting that is more dead than the Forgotten Realms. (The Realms can thank 4E, otherwise they'd be a helluva lot closer to death now, too.)
It's ancient, and it's tired. It's not necessarily a bad setting, but it's been done to death and milked of most of its inspiration and wonder. Without a setting-shattering update for 4E, (and given the amount of updating the setting would need, some might say a new setting would've been simpler), it's time to let Dragonlance slip off into the night.
So Planescape is a possibility.
I hope you're wrong about Dragonlance, Jimbo. Dragonlance is the one setting that is more dead than the Forgotten Realms. (The Realms can thank 4E, otherwise they'd be a helluva lot closer to death now, too.)
It's ancient, and it's tired. It's not necessarily a bad setting, but it's been done to death and milked of most of its inspiration and wonder. Without a setting-shattering update for 4E, (and given the amount of updating the setting would need, some might say a new setting would've been simpler), it's time to let Dragonlance slip off into the night.
I kind of agree. Substitute Dragonlance with Ravenloft then. That would be good.
I kind of agree. Substitute Dragonlance with Ravenloft then. That would be good.
Ravenloft could rock hard. (I loved Expedition to Castle Ravenloft!)Ravenloft has plenty of room for expansion yet.
Today, in 4e, planes are a central part of the D&D experience. It's expected that PCs will go to the Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos and the Astral Plane during their careers. Since it wouldn't make much sense to describe these planes one way in core material and another way in a Planescape setting, 4e Planescape will have less freedom to rewrite the planes than the original 2e version had.
I also think that the Outlands was a fundamental part of 2e Planescape that doesn't really fit into the 4e cosmology. While the original Planescape was one of my favorite settings, and I'd be glad if it showed up in 4e, a Sigil sourcebook that can be plugged into any campaign might be a better way for WotC to go.
...
I also think that the Outlands was a fundamental part of 2e Planescape that doesn't really fit into the 4e cosmology. While the original Planescape was one of my favorite settings, and I'd be glad if it showed up in 4e, a Sigil sourcebook that can be plugged into any campaign might be a better way for WotC to go.
Interesting idea. Manual of the Planes II, perhaps?
I'm expecting Manual of the Planes (I) to detail at least one planar city, and my money's on "The Bright City", because (AFAIK) it hasn't got all the legacy issues Sigil's got. It'd be a shame if Sigil was undersold by being presented without the factions and flavour that made it such a popular place. Sigil will definitely need a book mostly to itself.
I'd expect a Sigil: City of Doors supplement rather then a full-fledged setting.
Well, considering that the settings are only going to consist of 3 books - A DM's guide, a Player's Guide and an adventure, Isn't that pretty close to what your suggesting? Sigil by itself could be enough for a setting.
The former settings are certainly more traditional D&D, and would be picked up by both fans of the setting and curious newbies. The latter would require a lot of prep, to make it both palpable to old fans with highly specific ideas of what the setting is, as well as making it appealing to newblood.
Well, considering that the settings are only going to consist of 3 books - A DM's guide, a Player's Guide and an adventure, Isn't that pretty close to what your suggesting? Sigil by itself could be enough for a setting.
Difference being we get 1 book rather then 3 and it doesn't take up the slot of that year's campaign setting. It'd also be easier to convince my players to include Sigil in my Eberron game because I could say "It's not a separate setting. Its simply a supplement."
Planescape, along with Ravenloft, seem to be plug-ins. You go there from an base setting. For these, I think one book is sufficient, as there's less scope to cover.
Campaign settings can be roughly divided into two types - 'base' settings that represent a world, such as Forgotten Realms, Eberron & Greyhawk, and 'plug-in' settings that work best when added to an existing campaign world.
Planescape, along with Ravenloft, seem to be plug-ins. You go there from an base setting. For these, I think one book is sufficient, as there's less scope to cover.
Again, There is/was also the important division into roughly the 'traditional fantasy' ones VS the more 'divergent fantasy' ones. It may come in play with the releases years schedules....
It's of course rough and not always so black and white. Eberron have a more traditional side at the Five Nations core, by example...
Difference being we get 1 book rather then 3 and it doesn't take up the slot of that year's campaign setting. It'd also be easier to convince my players to include Sigil in my Eberron game because I could say "It's not a separate setting. Its simply a supplement."
Well I think that since we have a Manual of the Planes (and information about the planes in DMG I), that a Campaign Guide to Sigil and a Players Guide to Sigil, along with an adventure, SG1: Lost in the City of Doors, would be more appropriate then Planescape items. Then you can use it with Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc. Campaign Guide gives us all about Sigil, new beasts, the factions, the Lady, etc. The Players guide gives you new spells, feat, magic items, maybe even a Sigil focused character class or at least Paragon or Epic options for characters there. Module gets them there (or has them born there) and has an adventure introducing the city.
Well, considering that the settings are only going to consist of 3 books - A DM's guide, a Player's Guide and an adventure, Isn't that pretty close to what your suggesting? Sigil by itself could be enough for a setting.
Wait, what? Are they only gonna realease 3 books per setting?
Good thing i still have all my fluffy 3.5 Eberron books to cover all that which they will just never get to in 4th Ed.
Wait, what? Are they only gonna realease 3 books per setting?
Good thing i still have all my fluffy 3.5 Eberron books to cover all that which they will just never get to in 4th Ed.
Oh I'm sure they'll get to it, just in DDI format of Dungeon and Dragon E-magazines.
And, the DM's guide will have information that is really, only useful to the DM, while the players guide is for players. Instead of having books have uses for both players and DM's.
Wait, what? Are they only gonna realease 3 books per setting?
Good thing i still have all my fluffy 3.5 Eberron books to cover all that which they will just never get to in 4th Ed.
That is the plan. In 2006 and 2007 we got about 1/2 dozen books and adventures for each of the campaigns (FR & Eberron) per year, the plan is to do 2 books and an adventure once a year for one setting and then go to another one. That plus some of the other plans is why I've been saying apparently there plan is to provide less material to us for the next few years (and make it harder to find what material is available). I really think the online stuff is what they are counting on, but though I'll be giving them my $5 a month for Dragon and Dungeon, I was buying the magazines before, so once again I am spending less money.
-Tig
I don't see there being anything justified for having new classes in such a player's guide, but "multi-class only classes" such as Cipher, Sensate or Anarchist could be a possibility to represent certain faction or sect members.
It's been regulated to a description, and for PS there should be different descriptions on how things are. They could also have 5 alignments, as long as it's different 5 alignments then the ones in PHB1.
Second of all the Fraternity of Order/ Guvners is very much based around the idea of law. They are the faction all about, "what is law?" and "what can we do with laws?" While the Xaositects is the faction all about chaos, they are all about "what can we do when we embrace chaos?" and "what is chaos about?". They are the 2 opposite poles of factions.
You could say say "lawful good, unaligned and evil" while the other is "good, unaligned and chaotic evil". But it makes one seem more evil or more good than the other.
You can be evil and still be lawful, just as you can be good and lawful, or unaligned and lawful. The main thing is that if you are a member of the Fraternity of Order/ Guvners that you hold yourself in a lawful way. Good, bad, as long as you're the guy with the laws. Or the gun, which usually goes with the law. Unless you shoot the Sheriff, but not the deputy. Anyways, if you are going to be a part of the xaositecs then doing random chaotic things. This is one of the problems with alignments - people get stuck in a mindset that good = order, and evil = chaos. I really do wish that D&D had of evolved into good, evil and unaligned only or gotten rid of alignment entirely. Maybe in 5e.
The Ubbergeek is right, nothing is broken by putting planescape into the current alignment system, or vice versa. The factions can still have an impact on the world, that is if you know how to roleplay. See, that's the key thing.
We didn't see Planescape revived as a setting in 3.X, when the default cosmology was basically built on it, despite expressions of interest right from the beginning. The Manual of the Planes and Plannar Handbook were all we got (plus a lonely web excert for those who demanded the Modrons be reformated).
Now with planes, monsters, divinities, and alignments all so heavily revised, I really don't see it happening.
While it would be possible to do, I don't foresee it on the horizon.
We didn't see Planescape revived as a setting in 3.X, when the default cosmology was basically built on it, despite expressions of interest right from the beginning. The Manual of the Planes and Plannar Handbook were all we got (plus a lonely web excert for those who demanded the Modrons be reformated).
Now with planes, monsters, divinities, and alignments all so heavily revised, I really don't see it happening.
We know Sigil exists in 4.0 (DMG pg 160), I think Planescape will be the 4.0 Sigil, I dont know why that is so hard to believe. There arent that many setting, with them doing a new one every year, Planescape is likely to come up especially with the emphasis in the game of players actually going to other planes now.
While it would be possible to do, I don't foresee it on the horizon.
We didn't see Planescape revived as a setting in 3.X, when the default cosmology was basically built on it, despite expressions of interest right from the beginning. The Manual of the Planes and Plannar Handbook were all we got (plus a lonely web excert for those who demanded the Modrons be reformated).
Now with planes, monsters, divinities, and alignments all so heavily revised, I really don't see it happening.
C'mon believe and dream a little. Really, I think it would be in WotC best interest to release a setting that is different (Darksun or Planescape) rather than another ho-hum euro-esque fantasy setting that we've already gotten. I mean, with Eberron (and believe me I do love Eberron) it is still similar enough to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk that if you didn't know better - were new to the game, you'd think they were the same world. There'd be no mistaking either Planescape or Darksun as the aforementioned settings. Not to mention, how many other fantasy RPG's out there have the psuedo tokien/euro-esque feel? I think quite a few. WotC should shake it up a bit. Also, as mentioned earlier, Sigil is mentioned in the DMG and we've also had a DDI article on some hazards of Athas. I think WotC is trying to gauge interest in both these settings. Remember, it's not till 2010 that this could potentially come out. If they were working on some of it now, just in case, or for a potential release, it would give them at least a year after Eberron comes out in 2009.
We know Sigil exists in 4.0 (DMG pg 160), I think Planescape will be the 4.0 Sigil, I dont know why that is so hard to believe. There arent that many setting, with them doing a new one every year, Planescape is likely to come up especially with the emphasis in the game of players actually going to other planes now.
Well Wyatt and Baker just apparently announced that every setting released by WotC in the future will all use the same default 4e PoL cosmology. So scratch any recognizable version of Planescape appearing, given that it's explicitely based on the alignment based planes, and a number of concepts that the 4e design team has written off.
C'mon believe and dream a little. Really, I think it would be in WotC best interest to release a setting that is different (Darksun or Planescape) rather than another ho-hum euro-esque fantasy setting that we've already gotten. I mean, with Eberron (and believe me I do love Eberron) it is still similar enough to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk that if you didn't know better - were new to the game, you'd think they were the same world. There'd be no mistaking either Planescape or Darksun as the aforementioned settings. Not to mention, how many other fantasy RPG's out there have the psuedo tokien/euro-esque feel? I think quite a few. ...
...Except for the trains, telephones, mechanical men, LG Orcs, and CE Gold Dragons, right? Paint away at FR and Greyhawk with your broad brush, sir, but leave Eberron out of it.
Let's face it: If you're doing a setting justice, (that is, presenting it to players in the most effective manner), it will seem distinct from other settings. The opposite is also true. For example, just because the bad guys in your dungeon crawl happen to call themselves Mercykillers doesn't mean that your campaign is especially "Planescape".
Well Wyatt and Baker just apparently announced that every setting released by WotC in the future will all use the same default 4e PoL cosmology. ...
If this is true, it has implications. Have you got a source, Shemeska?
EDIT: Nevermind, Shemeska. I just hadn't gotten around to reading it yet.
Well Wyatt and Baker just apparently announced that every setting released by WotC in the future will all use the same default 4e PoL cosmology. So scratch any recognizable version of Planescape appearing, given that it's explicitely based on the alignment based planes, and a number of concepts that the 4e design team has written off.
They announced that last year in the preview books. Since we know that Sigil exists, I don't see why some seem to believe that not having the same cosmology dooms a recognizable planescape. Planescape to me was much more about Sigil, the Lady of Pain and conflicts in the Astral Plane, all of which we know exist in the new game and honestly I like the new cosmology better then any of the previous versions going back to 1st edition.
-Tig
Check out the Design & Development article released on 12/8 if you have access. The discussion there about the "universal chassis" indicates, at least to me, that Planescape will not be the same. Oh, I think they can rerelease fluff, maybe a book for each plane in the core cosmology, adventures in each plane, etc., but the way everything works is going to be pretty standard.
According to Rich Baker, "We don’t want to create settings where you have to change some piece of information in the monster stat block to fit it into the setting. Likewise, we want the same spell (power, ritual, or magic item, really) to work the same way in each setting, regardless of cosmology."
This was a key element of Planescape - you could jump back and forth from plane to plane through Sigil (or other means), but if you did not do your homework, you could very well be surprised by what you found on the other side of a portal and what did and did not work in you bag of tricks/book of spells. Again, fluff can describe different planes, but I think unique mechanics were really intrinsic to Planescape's draw.
Also, from James Wyatt: "We want Eberron players to be able to buy a book like Manual of the Planes and use it in their games."
This to me seems to be a core philosophy for 4E marketing (but to be honest, why it was not embraced before 4E is beyond me, as it is a basic principle of business - the more accessible your products, the more people will buy them). If they can make everything work for every "setting," then they do not have to develop setting-specific mechanics, which means they can (ideally) sell more core products to support those settings!
The same goes with putting player info into DM-oriented books. If they can get the right balance if player-DM info into each book, that expands the likelihood that players will buy the additional material.
There is also no reason why it could not be given proper treatment for 4e.
Flesh out Sigil, redefine the factions (those that survived the Faction War), introduce Bariaur as the new PC race...
It would be awesome!
In truth, what truly defined Planescape was Tony DiTerlizzi. His art truly set the gritty, edgy, emotional tone.[/indent]
Like many of you, Planescape was my favorite setting. Unfortunately, I do not think we will see its return in a recognizable format as a setting (as some have alluded to already).
This was a key element of Planescape - you could jump back and forth from plane to plane through Sigil (or other means), but if you did not do your homework, you could very well be surprised by what you found on the other side of a portal and what did and did not work in you bag of tricks/book of spells. Again, fluff can describe different planes, but I think unique mechanics were really intrinsic to Planescape's draw.
Nothing in that article or in the pieces we have seen from the Manual of the Planes says that the planes dont work differently then each other with regard to magic, etc, quite the contrary. Given we are getting 5 pages about Sigil in the Manual of the Planes, I would not be suprised to see Sigil:The City of Portals as a book out next year this time as a "2nd" manual of the planes, much like I expect we'll see a 2nd Draconomicon next November. The other possibility is that we'll see it as the 3rd setting in 2010. I dont understand why the more we get mention of Sigil and the desire to increase planar travel at all levels we get a steady increase in a belief that a 4th edition Planescape type environment isnt in the cards.
-Tig
Nothing in that article or in the pieces we have seen from the Manual of the Planes says that the planes dont work differently then each other with regard to magic, etc, quite the contrary. Given we are getting 5 pages about Sigil in the Manual of the Planes, I would not be suprised to see Sigil:The City of Portals as a book out next year this time as a "2nd" manual of the planes, much like I expect we'll see a 2nd Draconomicon next November. The other possibility is that we'll see it as the 3rd setting in 2010. I dont understand why the more we get mention of Sigil and the desire to increase planar travel at all levels we get a steady increase in a belief that a 4th edition Planescape type environment isnt in the cards.
-Tig
Agreed that it does not specifically say that they don't work differently,
however, below I have summed up the rationalization behind my case against 4E Planescape in a recognizable form. I think we will have planes, Sigil, maybe even more books for planar adventuring (MoP2, sure why not?), but it will not be like 2E Planescape, which what I think we all would have liked to see.
1) 11/17/2008 article Excerpts: Types of Planes states that most planes are like the natural world except for the fact that each plane has its own set of "unusual characteristics" and "natural laws."
Okay, so that sounded good, like maybe effects worked differently on different planes, until I read what exactly the categories for these characteristics were: layers, shape, gravity, and mutability.
It seemed like these properties, if any, would fall under mutability. They break this down into two categories - divinely mutable and unstable. The definitions given for each have only to do with physical aspects of the plane (geography, weather, buildings, etc.), but nothing to do with how effects work.
If we compare to 3E Manual of the Planes, each plane had traits. The 4E characteristics all seem to fit into the categories from 3E, but 3E elaborated in the Traits section at the beginning of each planar description what happened on that plane (i.e. Enhanced Magic/Impeded Magic).
I would think that if this were the case in 4E, they would do something similar, with them right up front in a text box or otherwise outlined like they have done with other items such as races and classes. I don't think these would be buried in text, and since they are not listed in the list of characteristics, I am not optimistic that we will see them.
Hopeful, mind you, but not optimistic.
2) 12/1/2008 Dragon article "Ze Planes! Ze Planes!" by Chris Youngs says this:
"Back in the 2E days, we did it with Planescape, proposing infinite planes, each infinitely large. In 3E we made that cosmology the core. And then in 4th Edition, we took that concept and refined it."
and this:
"Using planar concepts and implementing them has never been easier. One of the goals of 4th Edition was to make the planes more accessible at all levels of play."
Now, this is just my take on it, of course, but that does not sound like the old Planescape we all know and love. Firstly, looking at the way Chris describes the transition from 2E to 4E, it seems obvious why it was not a CS in 3E and seems unlikely it will be a CS in 4E. Also, by making the planes more accessible to all levels of play (and all levels of players/DMs), they have to be simplified, and based on what I have shown above, I feel this means at the expense of the truly distinct planar traits that 2E Planescape offered us.
I hope we get more planar info, but I think for Sigil this is it. However, if my PCs go there, I will just break out the old 2E stuff for flavor and work with the 4E mechanics.
"Back in the 2E days, we did it with Planescape, proposing infinite planes, each infinitely large. In 3E we made that cosmology the core. And then in 4th Edition, we took that concept and refined it."
I think you probably need to look up refined.
"Using planar concepts and implementing them has never been easier. One of the goals of 4th Edition was to make the planes more accessible at all levels of play."
Now, this is just my take on it, of course, but that does not sound like the old Planescape we all know and love. Firstly, looking at the way Chris describes the transition from 2E to 4E, it seems obvious why it was not a CS in 3E and seems unlikely it will be a CS in 4E. Also, by making the planes more accessible to all levels of play (and all levels of players/DMs), they have to be simplified, and based on what I have shown above, I feel this means at the expense of the truly distinct planar traits that 2E Planescape offered us.
Again, I dont think you are reading what Chris is saying correctly at all, and honestly I think the new planar concept makes the planes much more distinct then the the previous great wheel, in addition, adventuring in the planes at any level is kinda the idea of Planescape.
I hope we get more planar info, but I think for Sigil this is it.
I think thats likely the poorest prediction of the day, only something like I dont think there will be a PH 3 or MM 3 would have less likelihood of being correct given everything they have both hinted at and talked about for plans for the future.
-Tig
I think you probably need to look up refined.
No need to jab; based on how the rest of this edition has been "refined," I just don't see it happening. It is not meant as a good or a bad thing - just an observation. so far, I like the was 4E is working out, but, I'll admit, I am waiting to take my PCs to the planes until I read the MotP and see if I need to pull in previous' editions stuff.
Again, I dont think you are reading what Chris is saying correctly at all, and honestly I think the new planar concept makes the planes much more distinct then the the previous great wheel, in addition, adventuring in the planes at any level is kinda the idea of Planescape.
Well, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one as far as what Chris was saying. As for the distinctness of the planes, maybe I'll be surprised, but with tons of material in 2E, to one book in 3E, it just does not seem like a promising pattern.
I think thats likely the poorest prediction of the day, only something like I dont think there will be a PH 3 or MM 3 would have less likelihood of being correct given everything they have both hinted at and talked about for plans for the future.
Naming my prediction as the poorest does not seem justifiable; since we have no concrete evidence either way at this point, it is just an extrapolation of what I have read. If I did say no PH3 or no MM3 that would not be poor - it would be wrong. If you have something that points to a something else, my mind is open enough to rethink this.
On another note, I am curious about what you think about my first point - the mechanics of it all. I notice you did not quote that in your reply, and since we obviously have opposing viewpoints on the matter, I wonder if that first point makes you feel more or less likely that we will see a Planescape-like creation.
Naming my prediction as the poorest does not seem justifiable; since we have no concrete evidence either way at this point, it is just an extrapolation of what I have read. If I did say no PH3 or no MM3 that would not be poor - it would be wrong. If you have something that points to a something else, my mind is open enough to rethink this.
This is the 3rd time Sigil has been in a book in the first year of the game, and the 3rd time that at least 1 person has told me we would never see any more reference to it. I also dont see how people can say WOTC isnt interested in planescape like adventures for 4th edition despite WOTC constantly saying the changes to the cosmology were to make planar travel happen more often and allow more characters to adventure to the various planes. Forgive me if I'm tired of hearing about the non-existent wolf not eating the sheep.
On another note, I am curious about what you think about my first point - the mechanics of it all. I notice you did not quote that in your reply, and since we obviously have opposing viewpoints on the matter, I wonder if that first point makes you feel more or less likely that we will see a Planescape-like creation.
I think the interview with John Rogers, comments from the other book authors and the Feywild article all basically invalidate that opinion. I'm not sure what exactly you think was listed as a feature of Arvandor in Planescape (for instance) that wont/cant be supported in 4E, but from everything we've seen I'd say we are likely to see more differentiation between the planes with the new system then we ever saw in the 17 of the Great Wheel.
-Tig
I also dont see how people can say WOTC isnt interested in planescape like adventures for 4th edition despite WOTC constantly saying the changes to the cosmology were to make planar travel happen more often and allow more characters to adventure to the various planes.
I am not sure we are traveling down the same dialogue path. I am not saying that WoTC is not interested in "Planescape like" adventures. I am sure they are very into them because they know people loved Planescape and would like official content to cover it in the new edition. I am just saying that 2E Planescape will not be seen again, nor is there any indication that Planescape itself will be a 3-book, official Campaign setting.
I think that they will provide official content in the vein of Planescape. I think that bringing Sigil into the MotP like in 3E covers that. I think there will be Dragon content covering additional material and Dungeon planar adventures. We may see some printed materials, but it will not be Planescape. Describing the core cosmology and a few specific locales (Sigil, etc.) is just that - expanding the known multiverse, not priming for a brand new campaign setting. I will say it again - I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.
I think the interview with John Rogers, comments from the other book authors and the Feywild article all basically invalidate that opinion. I'm not sure what exactly you think was listed as a feature of Arvandor in Planescape (for instance) that wont/cant be supported in 4E, but from everything we've seen I'd say we are likely to see more differentiation between the planes with the new system then we ever saw in the 17 of the Great Wheel.
-Tig
The traits have to fit into a category, even if it is very broad, that can be applied to all planes. In the given list of planar traits, there is nowhere to record this. We may have very descriptive entries, but the space to record this type of crunch is lacking.
I am not sure we are traveling down the same dialogue path. I am not saying that WoTC is not interested in "Planescape like" adventures. I am sure they are very into them because they know people loved Planescape and would like official content to cover it in the new edition. I am just saying that 2E Planescape will not be seen again, nor is there any indication that Planescape itself will be a 3-book, official Campaign setting.
You seem to be diverging from your comment that we would see no more Sigil after MoP to we wont see a Planescape Players Guide, a Planescape Campaign Guide and a Planescape adventure. And there wont be a planescape campaign setting. I'll throw a wrench in that, and say, I'm not sure you can prove the core world of 4E isnt the Planescape campaign setting. Its modules will have featured travel to multiple planes by the time its original 9 modules are over, the MoP book will have talked about Sigil. Given the comments by one of the designers on the 30th podcast, I have a pretty good feeling we are going to see more of Planescape/Sigil in late 2009 or early 2010.
-Tig
Interesting idea; what would be the effects of a completely merged Planescape + Spelljammer setting?
kender and tinker gnomes crossbreeding Miniture Giant Space Hampsters with modrons:D
Look, the fact is that Sigl has been made a generic location in all of D&D. Since it is no longer a planscape exclusive location (like it was previously) odds are that they (WotC) have decided to merge the Planescape setting into the basic D&D system, and the way they did the Manual of the Planes as well as articles like Riven Justice in Dragon 370 seem to confirm that. This is not the only setting that seems to have been merged into the basic game. From the looks of the Shadowfell as well as the Domains of Dread article that appeared in Dragon a few issues back seem to suggest Ravenloft has been merged as well. Now I would personally love to see those two campaigns as well as Al-Qadim and my favorite setting Spelljammer (though the 4th edition system lends poorly to ship to ship combat which is what made Spelljammer in my opinion) along with a few other settings, but odds are that we won't be seeing those. Al-Qadim has a prayer but the others probably don't. My money says that in 2010 they'll do Dragonlance, and then if we're lucky Darksun will follow (and hopefully reintroduce the Psion), but as far as Planescape (and Ravenloft and Spelljammer) I doubt it greatly.
Exactly I think they are taking the view that unlike a full world replete with its own gods and 'center' that previous 'settings' like Spelljammer, Planescape, and Ravenloft should be part of the core rather than split off. All three of them crossed into other settings and didn't stand alone other than certain mechanics. Ravenloft had domains from Krynn (Lord Soth) and Toril at least. Spelljammer talked about spelljamming ports and had crystal sphere layouts for Krynn, Toril, and Oerth. Planescape was the doorway to all worlds. Now rather than having a PG/CG/Adventure for each they'll just be made part of the core cosmology and be setting-neutral.
Spelljammers currently (as shown in the MotP preview) are essentially a planar-travelling airship which is Adventurer's Vault. The Domains of Dread are touched on in Dragon and MotP as being part of the Shadowfell. Sigil is referenced multiple times and has a multi-page writeup in the MotP. We know it's after the Faction War and the Lady of Pain has banished all the factions though the newly re-split Mercykillers has one branch still in Sigil as the prisonkeepers.
The Blood War is no more (in FR it's explained) and for me won't be missed. It seemed an add-on that incorporated the Christian-fearing name changes for demons and devils and splitting them up to make a third group just so they could populate all the alignment specific planes of the Great Wheel.
The Blood War can still exist it just won't be a massive, endless war like before. It'll be more smaller scale (but just as big stakes), more akin to the cold war of US/USSR rather than a never-ending WWII.
All the Planescape setting material really added to the cosmology was Sigil, tieflings, and the factions. It gave Concordant Opposition a purpose in the Great Wheel.
Personally, I approve. In a very abstract sense, the Blood War -a Planar-scale World War- appealed to me. In practice, however, I found it boring. There just wasn't any meaning to it for the average PC, who could never hope to truly make any effect on its outcome, so it was merely background color. This new version, a version that the PCs can actually shape the course of it, is a vast improvement in my opinion.
The Great Wheel is also presented as an alternate shape for the cosmology as well.
At Heroic tier (okay, later in the Heroic Tier), a skirmish in the Blood War might spill over into the area where the party is hunting a villain, or the town the party is based out of might be in between the two camps. This added problem could also plague Paragon Tier adventures.
By Epic Tier, an item you need might be on the battlefield of such a war, and you have to fight anyone in your way to gt what you want and get back out alive!
I think I'd rather see Dark Sun than Planescape, but it's true that Planescape provided a truly unique setting.
*
This has probably been clobbered like a horse with 0HP, but I think it was DUMB to drop the 9 alignment system. It made sense and had a certain balance. And I don't believe I've met many players who felt that their alignment was getting in the way of their having fun.
I hope we get more planar info, but I think for Sigil this is it. However, if my PCs go there, I will just break out the old 2E stuff for flavor and work with the 4E mechanics.
DMG2 will feature a paragon tier city you can drop into any campaign by the name of Sigil, City of Doors.
:P
-Tig
PS Hurry and you can be the first to incorrectly predict that DMG2 will be the absolutely positively last time we see Sigil.