| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 06:18:55
http://dyverscampaign.blogspot.com/2014/04/97-is-still-failing-3-of-time.html
As Quoting
quote:
". . . Pretty early on, we agreed that the core rules for D&D Next had to acknowledge the existence of all the worlds of D&D—not just the Forgotten Realms we’ve been talking a lot about, but also Greyhawk, Eberron, Krynn, Athas, Mystara, Ravenloft—and, most importantly, the thousands and thousands of worlds created by DMs for their own games. So we’re writing from that perspective, and you’ve seen snippets of it in the playtest materials—for example, the inclusion of the kender and the warforged in the last races document, with explicit mention of the worlds they come from . .
|
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zireael |
Posted - 21 Apr 2014 : 09:59:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Planescape is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the OP source.
I have learned that when dealing with promises from marketing, politicians, priests, doctors, scientists, and used-car salesmen, it is far more revealing to listen not to what is said but to what is not said. I expect that 5E won't necessarily invalidate previous Planescape lore, but it will not tacitly acknowledge the existence of new Planescape lore.
My feelings exactly. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 13:30:22
The one thing I'd love they'd bring back from planescape is the artist Tony DiTerlizzi.
But aside from my dreams, I think modrons were a significantly iconic representation of planescapes feel as whole: quirky, weird and fascinating.
I'd love them to bring out an 'oddesey trough the planes'-type adventure module for once. A low level one for losing oneself in the fearie crossroads and up to one where the party is descending into the hells and all the venues one has to pass to get there from the primes would both be excellent. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 10:34:38
Yep, mileage just doesn‘t apply when crossing planes and dimensions. Who cares what the roadmap looks like, as long as it gets you to your destination? (Assuming, of course, that you are not denied the patronage of your deity for looking at heretical roadsigns.) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 06:51:10
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Planescape - along with the “avante garde“ proto-steampunky nonmedieval weird and profound high fantasy it embraces - is absolutely my personal preference in RPG settings. I see the Great Wheel and Cosmic Tree and Astral Sea models as being metaphors and theories which explain and map the D&D cosmos, mutually incompatible yet each as accurate as the others. The planes are just places, and methods of moving between them just depend on how you believe your magic works. Early Vikings sailed wherever coastlines took them, early Christians paved roads wherever Rome could march - yet even with fundamentally different ways of looking at the world, and different gods or pantheons declaring who and what would be found within it, these peoples managed to interact. So, too, it must be across at least some of the cosmos.
I‘m not the only Planescape fan who‘s independantly arrived at this insight.
So I‘m a little confused by fans and critics of 3E (and 4E) who are intolerant of new cosmic metaphors. It‘s just a game, and the Great Wheel or Tree or Ocean or Flame or Maze or Book or Croissant or Painting or Whatever is just a way of drawing the maps which players follow to adventure. A nearly infinite universe filled with nearly infinite worlds populated by nearly infinite species who often insist on changing how things work (or insist on working against natural change) ... like any single map can possibly encompass it entirely, even the gods can‘t comprehend it all or have the ability to go anywhere they please, why should puny mortals of some trivial power have access to better?
-Somewhat large scale changes (like merging the Shadow and Negative Energy Planes into one place for example) aside, completely agree. For me, the biggest thing that Planescape brought to the table was the immense amount of lore about the various people and places it detailed. The "shape" of how the cosmos is ordered is almost a metaphorical thing more than anything- these are worlds existing on different wavelengths, not places existing on the same physical plane, connected in very definite and well defined ways. Changes from "Wheel" to "Tree" to "Soup" never bothered me as much as the associated actual changes to the lore of the various planes and/or the amount of information that was written on them. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 04:16:44
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
So does this mean I need to take all the Planescape miniatures which I just finished putting up for sale on eBay back off the market?
aaaaa maaaaaaaaaaaaaayybeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
| Venger |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 03:21:32
So does this mean I need to take all the Planescape miniatures which I just finished putting up for sale on eBay back off the market? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 03:05:24
Planescape - along with the “avante garde“ proto-steampunky nonmedieval weird and profound high fantasy it embraces - is absolutely my personal preference in RPG settings. I see the Great Wheel and Cosmic Tree and Astral Sea models as being metaphors and theories which explain and map the D&D cosmos, mutually incompatible yet each as accurate as the others. The planes are just places, and methods of moving between them just depend on how you believe your magic works. Early Vikings sailed wherever coastlines took them, early Christians paved roads wherever Rome could march - yet even with fundamentally different ways of looking at the world, and different gods or pantheons declaring who and what would be found within it, these peoples managed to interact. So, too, it must be across at least some of the cosmos.
I‘m not the only Planescape fan who‘s independantly arrived at this insight.
So I‘m a little confused by fans and critics of 3E (and 4E) who are intolerant of new cosmic metaphors. It‘s just a game, and the Great Wheel or Tree or Ocean or Flame or Maze or Book or Croissant or Painting or Whatever is just a way of drawing the maps which players follow to adventure. A nearly infinite universe filled with nearly infinite worlds populated by nearly infinite species who often insist on changing how things work (or insist on working against natural change) ... like any single map can possibly encompass it entirely, even the gods can‘t comprehend it all or have the ability to go anywhere they please, why should puny mortals of some trivial power have access to better? |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 19 Apr 2014 : 23:32:12
Which, again, was what they did in 3E. There was a lot of bad feeling with the whole "Great Tree" thing, though, which was an attempt to distance the settings, I suppose. Then they started to go "hey, don't pay attention to what we wrote there, really...". I hope they're more neutral now and don't make up stuff that clearly invalidates a bunch of Planescape lore. Still, even a rehash of the Great Tree with an undercurrent of "use Planescape if you wish, but we won't bother with it" would be better than the 4E cosmology to me. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Apr 2014 : 22:48:48
Planescape is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the OP source.
I have learned that when dealing with promises from marketing, politicians, priests, doctors, scientists, and used-car salesmen, it is far more revealing to listen not to what is said but to what is not said. I expect that 5E won't necessarily invalidate previous Planescape lore, but it will not tacitly acknowledge the existence of new Planescape lore. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 19 Apr 2014 : 01:46:20
Eberwhatsit connecctes to the wheel at the plane of shadow..... maybe the astral too....
but last I looked in one, which was the 3.x one, it has a shadowplane / plane of shadow which is in 4e would be the shadowfel.... |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 18:20:08
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
It's odd to hear Chris Perkins say that modrons will be back in #dndnext since they existed in 4th-Edition.
He might not have said it. The last bullet point in the "Secrets" article says:
quote:
Modrons will return in the upcoming fifth edition rules!
No quotation marks; it's just the author's understanding/belief. I suspect that something along those lines was said, but the author doesn't give us the quote. Sorry about the lack of clarity; I went back and tweaked my wording a bit. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 17:54:45
I think they are acknowledging the settings and the connections between them (i.e. Planescape and Spelljammer), but only developing some of them, when they think it's a good idea. Which is exactly what they did in 3e, and pretty much the obvious move. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 17:33:32
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Primus the One and Prime.
Sweet Betty-Loo!
Hush you, you're talking about Hasbro there. And they've already got the movies going. If they realize they can dump the worlds into D&D as well, we're all screwed. (Seriously, do you really want to see Eberron Transforged or G.I. Harpers???) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 17:30:40
-Primus the One and Prime. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 16:43:44
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
It's odd to hear Chris Perkins say that modrons will be back in #dndnext since they existed in 4th-Edition.
Somewhat , but not really. They are also bringing back Optimus Prime in NEXT. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 16:23:46
It's odd to hear Chris Perkins say that modrons will be back in #dndnext since they existed in 4th-Edition. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 15:59:04
As much as I want them to revisit all of these settings --particularly Al-Qadim, Maztica, and Kara-Tur for the sake of the Realms-- nothing in this particular statement says they're actually going to. They're just acknowledging that they're going to mention other settings while writing about whichever ones they're going to write about. I think they're actually hoping that this will placate the fans of the "defunct" settings without requiring any effort or investment on WotC's part. (The quotes are there because the settings are being developed by fans so they're not actually defunct.) Personally I regard this tactic as lame and disrespectful to the creators of both settings and the element that's drawn into the wrong world, but that's just me.
In the Forbes.com article called "Secrets from the Tyranny of Dragons" there's a quote from Chris Perkins which suggests that they almost definitely will be revamping Eberron and they might reopen Ravenloft. But notice that modrons are coming back but he specifically avoided saying that Planescape is coming back. If Planescape was coming back, he would have said "that includes Eberron and Planescape" because Planescape is undeniably a key setting with a devoted fan base and they would want to encourage those fans to be excited about 5e. The fact that modrons were mentioned rather than Planescape is significant.
So it sounds to me like they're going to be pulling the bits we like into the 5e era, rather than reopening full settings. I suspect that there will not be an official 5e Ravenloft either, because he said "Ravenloft stuff." Flavor, but nothing to chew on. For me, this boils down to laziness and fear of commitment. I'm sure they would phrase it differently, maybe "we don't have the resources to revamp all of our settings, so we have to focus on the settings which are most viable." That's not a quote from anyone except me.
Edit:
My bad for the negative tone. I suppose having kender and modrons is better than not having kender and modrons. If nothing else, it will be good to have them translated into 5e so that we can use them as a reference when converting all the monsters they don't update.
There are reasons to be optimistic about 5e... I just put this particular quote in the "sigh" column instead of the "yay!" column. 
On a tangent, that dyverscampaign blog looks cool upon cursory inspection.
Another edit for clarification: the cited article says modrons are coming back, but it's not a quote from WotC. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 14:37:49
Athas was never connected to Planescape, so far as I recall, and connecting Eber-whatsit to Planescape would be a bit of a nifty trick. Ditto for both, with Spelljammer, though I suspect Eber-whatsit would be easier to connect to the latter. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 14:30:47
I don't see Planescape in the list. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 07:18:57
good, if they mention as to what world they belong too, that should they be included into the phb, than there should be no problem about them being excluded out of other settings that they are not native too.........( though still at DM's discretion) |
| jordanz |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 06:25:05
Nice I miss Grewhawk, what's Gord been up to? :) |
|
|
