|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:59 pm
Has 4th edition come out with the proper supplements to reproduce Planescape? I know Sigil gets a number of varying references here and there and there are a handful of books about planar travel, but is the setting too married to old mechanics and planar architechtures?
I left an edition tag off the subject in order that I might attract fans of 2e's Planescape for their perspective. Is it a simple metasetting, or does it require the bizarre philosophies that characterized it back in the day.
(between Planescape and several oWoD games, Subjectivity seems to have been big back in the 90s)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:10 pm
I don't think they could do it enough justice in 4th E. Planescape was wonderfully complex and woven upon the intricacies between the old alignment system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:13 am
Ah, Planescape. I read up on it once, but never played a game of it. I do know that you do not piss off The Lady. But yea, I do believe that it is very alignment heavy. Not sure how that'd all work for 4e. I don't even know where to begin for how things would work either. Uh... good luck with that Arc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Well, so far as I understood it was only as alignment heavy as the outer planes themselves were keyed to degrees of alignment. Most of the actions of the factions in Sigil were free of any alignment-specificity, and were philosophically-based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:00 am
For Sigil, certainly. If I remember correctly, most of the Faction leaders were Lawful-good.
However, since WoTC has watered down many things about the planes, I don't have great hopes for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:07 am
Would you care to dicuss that? You say watered down, but I would say they took the planes in a new direction with a more story-driven model, rather than being based on the alignment mechanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:52 am
What Arc said. Too many planes, a big mess. While it has been 'dumbed down', I think it was refreshing, what did they did with the D&D cosmology and all that in 4th ed. And I mean, they brought Dark Sun back, and Sigil is like the center of the planes. Who's to say they won't make it work? It'd be interesting to see how Sigil's changed due to the Elemental Chaos thing and all that.
And yes, most of the factions were mostly idea-centered. The Sensates, Xaoxisects, etc. Sigil wasn't about alignment, it's surrounding planes were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:19 pm
Story vs. Mechanics. A GM will do what he will with his world. He only needs the mechanics to back him up.
Now, as far as story goes, I was sold on the old story of how the planes worked and they kind of flushed that down the toilet. Fine. We have a "New, easier to understand, less convoluted cosmology"....but where does that leave those of us who were fans of the old one? To be blunt....their Sigil is no longer my Sigil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:30 pm
Plainsfox Story vs. Mechanics. A GM will do what he will with his world. He only needs the mechanics to back him up. Now, as far as story goes, I was sold on the old story of how the planes worked and they kind of flushed that down the toilet. Fine. We have a "New, easier to understand, less convoluted cosmology"....but where does that leave those of us who were fans of the old one? To be blunt....their Sigil is no longer my Sigil. You're being a grognard. Sigil is still, from what I know, being reigned by the Lady of Pain, still has all these groups in conflict, still is the city of gates. I mean, why is change so bad? Running the same cosmology for so long must be stagnating. You have the old books (or so I think), you can always use the old cosmology. But I think the change is interesting. A GM can certainly work with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:39 pm
If that's the point you want to leave it on....that if I shouldn't buy the story, then you're right. I'm not buying the story. They changed the whole enchilada and while I don't hate the recipe, I wish they'd finally face facts and stop calling the damn thing an enchilada and stop trying to convince others that it is an enchilada when it is more of a burrito! Or maybe a soft shelled taco. I do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:05 pm
Plainsfox If that's the point you want to leave it on....that if I shouldn't buy the story, then you're right. I'm not buying the story. They changed the whole enchilada and while I don't hate the recipe, I wish they'd finally face facts and stop calling the damn thing an enchilada and stop trying to convince others that it is an enchilada when it is more of a burrito! Or maybe a soft shelled taco. I do not know. WHAT story changed? Many of them did. But you REALLY want things to never change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:13 pm
I want Wizards of the Coast to stop shitting us all and admit that they made a new ******** game system instead of trying to ******** us over with branding. I want them to stop repackaging old D&D classics as their 4th E s**t and maybe bring us something more creative. Is that being a Grognard, Keith?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:19 pm
Plainsfox I want Wizards of the Coast to stop shitting us all and admit that they made a new ******** game system instead of trying to ******** us over with branding. I want them to stop repackaging old D&D classics as their 4th E s**t and maybe bring us something more creative. Is that being a Grognard, Keith? Yup. Pretty much. D&D is D&D to me, no matter what. I like 4E, not too big on 3.x, dig 2nd ed. Never played 1st ed, but I'd probably like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:49 pm
I always thought of the new cosmology as the Great BLT, rather than a Wheel. Or a burrito.
Am I correct in understanding that your beef is the idea of 4e marketing itself to oldbies by referencing its rich history after having gutted the sacred cows of the game in forging a new system? It seems to be a semi-contradictory action on their part, but isn't your reaction contradictory as well? You're decrying their changes and pleading for something new, unless I'm reading you wrong.
I think Keith's point was that while the cosmology has changed, Sigil is still largely the same(as mutable as Sigil is initially) and many of the hot locations of the Wheel are still present within the Great BLT. To me the only real difference is the removal of alignment as a motivating and organizing factor within the planes. Well, I can think of a few other distinctions:
~The Rule of Three is still present, although it takes a different definition
~the planes can still be shaped by will, but only in the Elemental Chaos
~dead souls don't travel to the assorted planes, but to the Shadowfell
~and Yugoloths are demons, which legend holds is what they were initially
Psionic Power holds a sidebar that suggests the potential existence of Modrons, which is more than 3e did for them(outside of an April Fool's issue of Dragon)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
