I never really had any interest in the Planescape setting. I flipped through the sourcebooks and didn't have enough interest to learn the chant well enough to read them so I didn't really react that strongly to the news that TSR was dropping Planescape.
Then, to my dismay, I found myself REALLY enjoying playing the CRPG Planescape: Torment and have experience an increase in my level of interest in the setting.
Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in existence?
Hmmm... To put it more simply. 1. TSR decides to ditch Planescape. 2. Planescape: Torment comes out and is incredibly good and creates interest in the setting. 3. TSR looks silly. 4. Play Planescape:Torment... :)
Ed -- "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Tsr is not dropping Plancescape entirely, they are still going to print material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping the mane though...got the tsr website to find out more
edsm...@my-deja.com wrote: > I never really had any interest in the Planescape setting. I flipped > through the sourcebooks and didn't have enough interest to learn the chant > well enough to read them so I didn't really react that strongly to the > news that TSR was dropping Planescape.
> Then, to my dismay, I found myself REALLY enjoying playing the CRPG > Planescape: Torment and have experience an increase in my level of > interest in the setting.
> Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting > they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in > existence?
> Hmmm... To put it more simply. > 1. TSR decides to ditch Planescape. > 2. Planescape: Torment comes out and is incredibly good and creates > interest in the setting. > 3. TSR looks silly. > 4. Play Planescape:Torment... :)
> Ed > -- > "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
The other problem is that, because it's assumed that the reader knows nothing of the Planescape "way of doing things" (changes to magic on different planes, how portals work, etc.), there are lots of sidebars that explain rules that Planescape-folk already know. The net result is less usable material and less detail. I love Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex of Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
Staffan Johansson wrote: > magel...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> > Tsr is not dropping Plancescape entirely, they are still going to print > > material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping the > > mane though...got the tsr website to find out more
> While I haven't bought any of the non-PS planar material (Vortex of > Madness, Guide to Hell or Warriors of Heaven) it has been my impression > from posts here, and reviews in various places, that these are sorely > lacking in Planescape "feel", which I understand to be one of the strong > points of Torment. Sounds like a suboptimal market move if you ask me... > -- > Staffan Johansson (balo...@crosswinds.net) > "There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of > course, to the bottom of the C." > -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
1) Ego-centric editors and authors that are trying to promote themselves to demi-god status by having their opinions and wants override long-standing rules set by the game creators. And another thing...do I *really* need to see another article from Chris Perkins or one more damm picture/art of Sean Reynolds??!?! Please guys, the publications aren't there to build up your fragile egos and small worlds! (And "no" I have never submitted anything to TSR for rejection...just had opportunity to meet and observe the arrogant b*stards at GenCon for several sessions). Just my humble opinion of the lot. Two words for the aboved mentioned...grow hair.
2) TSR is about making money. Whether under Lorraine The <insert expletive here>, or the current regime, make no mistake that TSR is about money. Its a business, not a hobby. That's why they destroyed a truck load of original (and mint condition collector) D&D and AD&D items instead of saturating their market base by releasing them to the public (can't quote source for secrecy purposes, but it happened).
Bottom line: Planescape is not making them money, and that is why they will drop it. This same reason explains why they are no longer creating modules (as per a post by the VP (who is rather nice, IMO...and even tho you didn't keep your word to get me into 3E beta testing you are still alright in my book - ball dropper)). Despite their rantings about the company being run by gamers for gamers, they are greedy ego-centric game-designer-wanna-bes (exclude Skip Williams on that one) who are no better than Lorraine The <insert expletive here> in my book.
That's just my (obesely [is that even a word?] broad-sweeping opinions, but I could be wrong.
Daringly,
Funkengruven 23rd Level Dennis Miller Wanna-Be Who Is Drunk And Venting For No Apparent Reason Other Than ...Aww Forget It...
<edsm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:388617c8_2@news2.one.net... > I never really had any interest in the Planescape setting. I flipped > through the sourcebooks and didn't have enough interest to learn the chant > well enough to read them so I didn't really react that strongly to the > news that TSR was dropping Planescape.
> Then, to my dismay, I found myself REALLY enjoying playing the CRPG > Planescape: Torment and have experience an increase in my level of > interest in the setting.
> Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting > they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in > existence?
> Hmmm... To put it more simply. > 1. TSR decides to ditch Planescape. > 2. Planescape: Torment comes out and is incredibly good and creates > interest in the setting. > 3. TSR looks silly. > 4. Play Planescape:Torment... :)
> Ed > -- > "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
>Tsr is not dropping Plancescape entirely, they are still going to print >material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping >the >nane though...got the tsr website to find out more
Yes, and everything that they've come out with in the "generic" line so far has been utter crap. At least IMO.
But, I brought up the exact point of the origional poster eailier, and got the reply that Torment was licensed before the sucking drain of captialism caused TSR to make the decision to fold PS into the Core.
That does take some of the fun out of heckling them for it, but I suppose it is a half-way legitmate response.
--------------------------- Coik Coik's Rants & Reviews page http://members.aol.com/dmcoik/rant.htm Last updated 12/19/99: Why 3e Concept Art Could be Fun
> Tsr is not dropping Plancescape entirely, they are still going to print > material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping the > mane though...got the tsr website to find out more
While I haven't bought any of the non-PS planar material (Vortex of Madness, Guide to Hell or Warriors of Heaven) it has been my impression from posts here, and reviews in various places, that these are sorely lacking in Planescape "feel", which I understand to be one of the strong points of Torment. Sounds like a suboptimal market move if you ask me... -- Staffan Johansson (balo...@crosswinds.net) "There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of course, to the bottom of the C." -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
> 1) Ego-centric editors and authors that are trying to promote themselves to > demi-god status by having their opinions and wants override long-standing > rules set by the game creators. And another thing...do I *really* need to > see another article from Chris Perkins or one more damm picture/art of Sean > Reynolds??!?! Please guys, the publications aren't there to build up your > fragile egos and small worlds! (And "no" I have never submitted anything to > TSR for rejection...just had opportunity to meet and observe the arrogant > b*stards at GenCon for several sessions). Just my humble opinion of the lot. > Two words for the aboved mentioned...grow hair.
I *have* sent in a number of articles and small adventures to both Dungeon and Dragon magazines over the years (a few even got published!). I feel the need to state that Chris Perkins has always been MORE than polite, MORE than fair, and MORE than helpful in any dealings I have had with him. What's more, the adventures that he has written for the pages of Dungeon magazine were GOOD, so I don't much care if he "abused his editorial powers" or not.
> 2) TSR is about making money.
So is any company. This is no revelation. If they did not make money, they would fold, and there would be NO new product at all. TSR is responsible for remaining fiscally secure.
> Whether under Lorraine The <insert expletive > here>, or the current regime, make no mistake that TSR is about money.
Lorraine's methods (from what I have read about them) were not financially sound. She basically used the company as a "cash cow" and didn't put much thought into its future. The "current regime" seems much more interested in the maintenance and future of the game. I, and I believe many others, feel that there has been a great improvement in management over the years.
>Its a > business, not a hobby. That's why they destroyed a truck load of original > (and mint condition collector) D&D and AD&D items instead of saturating > their market base by releasing them to the public (can't quote source for > secrecy purposes, but it happened).
Oh, NOW I get it. You're a troll.
> Bottom line: Planescape is not making them money, and that is why they will > drop it. This same reason explains why they are no longer creating modules > (as per a post by the VP (who is rather nice, IMO...and even tho you didn't > keep your word to get me into 3E beta testing you are still alright in my > book - ball dropper)).
I neither need nor want to know about who is dropping your balls.
> Despite their rantings about the company being run by > gamers for gamers,
I think you're thinking of Interplay... ;^)
> they are greedy ego-centric game-designer-wanna-bes > (exclude Skip Williams on that one) who are no better than Lorraine The > <insert expletive here> in my book.
Right. This describes Bruce Cordell, et. al. to a tee. :^)
> That's just my (obesely [is that even a word?] broad-sweeping opinions, but > I could be wrong.
Really?
> Daringly,
> Funkengruven > 23rd Level Dennis Miller Wanna-Be Who Is Drunk And Venting For No Apparent > Reason Other Than ...Aww Forget It...
Erknert. Kipshit. Inferior mathematical bug.
- Ron ^*^
-- "Then *know* this and speak of it NO MORE. *Know* that I shall never *know* the TRUTH. There is NO resolution to this matter, for I shall NEVER *know* Zerthimon's heart upon the Blasted Plains."
It took you *that* long? -- Staffan Johansson (balo...@crosswinds.net) "There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of course, to the bottom of the C." -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
> The other problem is that, because it's assumed that the reader knows nothing of the > Planescape "way of doing things" (changes to magic on different planes, how portals > work, etc.), there are lots of sidebars that explain rules that Planescape-folk > already know. The net result is less usable material and less detail. I love > Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex of > Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
> > > Tsr is not dropping Plancescape entirely, they are still going to print > > > material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping the > > > mane though...got the tsr website to find out more
> > While I haven't bought any of the non-PS planar material (Vortex of > > Madness, Guide to Hell or Warriors of Heaven) it has been my impression > > from posts here, and reviews in various places, that these are sorely > > lacking in Planescape "feel", which I understand to be one of the strong > > points of Torment. Sounds like a suboptimal market move if you ask me... > > -- > > Staffan Johansson (balo...@crosswinds.net) > > "There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of > > course, to the bottom of the C." > > -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
WHAT a game!!! :) Finally, ROLEPLAYING on the computer! It now ranks with Eye of thre Beholder as my top fave game. EOB has a nostalgia factor of immense proportions by way.
<edsm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:388617c8_2@news2.one.net... > I never really had any interest in the Planescape setting. I flipped > through the sourcebooks and didn't have enough interest to learn the chant > well enough to read them so I didn't really react that strongly to the > news that TSR was dropping Planescape.
> Then, to my dismay, I found myself REALLY enjoying playing the CRPG > Planescape: Torment and have experience an increase in my level of > interest in the setting.
> Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting > they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in > existence?
> Hmmm... To put it more simply. > 1. TSR decides to ditch Planescape. > 2. Planescape: Torment comes out and is incredibly good and creates > interest in the setting. > 3. TSR looks silly. > 4. Play Planescape:Torment... :)
> Ed > -- > "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
In article <388617c...@news2.one.net>, edsm...@my-deja.com wrote: >I never really had any interest in the Planescape setting. I flipped >through the sourcebooks and didn't have enough interest to learn the chant >well enough to read them so I didn't really react that strongly to the >news that TSR was dropping Planescape.
I bought the original box set when it came out, and always liked the setting. I understand your reservation though. I think they got too obsessed with using the cant in the rulebooks, and that made the learning curve higher than a campaign world should be. They should have left the cant for special sections, modules, supplements, etc.
>Then, to my dismay, I found myself REALLY enjoying playing the CRPG >Planescape: Torment and have experience an increase in my level of >interest in the setting.
Yeah, that game ROCKS.
>Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting >they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in >existence?
Its not ironic at all. It goes to show that TSR is still desperately in need of management that has a clue.
>Hmmm... To put it more simply. >1. TSR decides to ditch Planescape. >2. Planescape: Torment comes out and is incredibly good and creates >interest in the setting. >3. TSR looks silly. >4. Play Planescape:Torment... :)
I agree 100% with all 4 points. =)
-Aristotle@Threshold -- VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
> 1) Ego-centric editors and authors that are trying to promote themselves to > demi-god status by having their opinions and wants override long-standing > rules set by the game creators. And another thing...do I *really* need to see > another article from Chris Perkins or one more damm picture/art of Sean > Reynolds??!?! Please guys, the publications aren't there to build up your > fragile egos and small worlds! (And "no" I have never submitted anything to > TSR for rejection...just had opportunity to meet and observe the arrogant > b*stards at GenCon for several sessions). Just my humble opinion of the lot. > Two words for the aboved mentioned...grow hair.
And it doesn't match my experience. There's a lot of people at WOTC/TSR that I like and/or respect: Jeff Grubb, Steven Schend, Julia Martin, Monte Cook, Chris Pramas, Jonathan Tweet, Kim Mohan among many others. You need to shrink the size of your brush.
> 2) TSR is about making money. Whether under Lorraine The <insert expletive > here>, or the current regime, make no mistake that TSR is about money. Its > abusiness, not a hobby. That's why they destroyed a truck load of original > (and mint condition collector) D&D and AD&D items instead of saturating their > market base by releasing them to the public (can't quote source for > secrecy purposes, but it happened).
Yes, there are about making money. I'm sure the families of the staff appreciate that. But there are also plenty of folks there who care about the works that they're creating. One can debate the merits of their decisions without tarring them personally. They aren't saints, and they make mistakes, but let's not damn them so broadly.
They're releasing a lot of old releases on CD-ROM, so it shouldn't be too hard for players to get access to the old material; e-bay's also done a lot to increase access to old releases. As for the collector's market, if it's anything like what the speculation junkies did to the comics scene in the mid-1990s, let it rot.
> I love > Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex of > Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
Now Guide to Hell did some wacky things I wasn't too happy with, namely all the Lords of the Nine get their power directly from Asmodeus and are therefore no threat to him at all. I liked it better when Asmo had to *work* to keep his position in the heirarchy and that other could conceivably threaten his place as "Lord of Hell". Another bit of weirdness is that non-believers go to Hell... What's that all about?
I picked up Vortex of Madness the other day and I've just had a chance to thumb through it. I like it. I like the Greyhawk tie-in (I play a Greyhawk/Planescape game) and overall the planar locales seem pretty interesting.
Replies go below quoted text. Signatures and any text you're not replying to get snipped.
> 1) Ego-centric editors and authors that are trying to promote themselves to > demi-god status by having their opinions and wants override long-standing > rules set by the game creators. And another thing...do I *really* need to > see another article from Chris Perkins or one more damm picture/art of Sean > Reynolds??!?! Please guys, the publications aren't there to build up your > fragile egos and small worlds! (And "no" I have never submitted anything to > TSR for rejection...just had opportunity to meet and observe the arrogant > b*stards at GenCon for several sessions). Just my humble opinion of the lot. > Two words for the aboved mentioned...grow hair.
Let's see... no professional experience with the above-mentioned, and nothing but personal attacks to back up your opinion.
Righty-O.
(Oh. Newflash: Writers have egos. No, really. They do.)
> 2) TSR is about making money. Whether under Lorraine The <insert expletive > here>, or the current regime, make no mistake that TSR is about money. Its a > business, not a hobby.
The best businesses are both. If you want to practice a hobby for a living, you *have* to make it a business. There's nothing wrong with that.
> That's why they destroyed a truck load of original > (and mint condition collector) D&D and AD&D items instead of saturating > their market base by releasing them to the public (can't quote source for > secrecy purposes, but it happened).
Duh.
Apple dumped a jaw-dropping number of original and mint-condition collector Lisa computers into a landfill, too. Why? Because unsaleable inventory is a *major* drag on any company. It sits in the warehouse and sucks up money.
*Any* company faced with saturating their market and diluting their product line, or discarding old product, will discard the old product.
> Bottom line: Planescape is not making them money, and that is why they will > drop it.
Horrors, no!
TSR almost went bankrupt *twice*. If they're more vigilant about making sure that doesn't happen again, I can't blame them. If Planescape didn't make money, it's not because TSR's designers failed to pour sweat and blood into it, or because of the callous policies of the Evil Corporate Management, cackling evilly as they dream up another way to enrage the customer base. It's because not enough people bought it. If you want to blame someone, blame yourself.
> This same reason explains why they are no longer creating modules > (as per a post by the VP (who is rather nice, IMO...and even tho you didn't > keep your word to get me into 3E beta testing you are still alright in my > book - ball dropper)). Despite their rantings about the company being run by > gamers for gamers, they are greedy ego-centric game-designer-wanna-bes > (exclude Skip Williams on that one) who are no better than Lorraine The > <insert expletive here> in my book.
And you, of course, are a humble, self-effacing, objective game-designer-for-real. With a full head of hair, no doubt.
A'koss wrote: > Yup, this is where I'm hangin' my hat again. ;) I've decided to focus on > just one D&D ng and this is still the best one out there IMO.
> A'koss!
Yah, well, it is the one *I* hang out on... ;^)
Welcome back A'koss!
- Ron ^*^
-- "Then *know* this and speak of it NO MORE. *Know* that I shall never *know* the TRUTH. There is NO resolution to this matter, for I shall NEVER *know* Zerthimon's heart upon the Blasted Plains."
> > I love > > Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex > of > > Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
> Now Guide to Hell did some wacky things I wasn't too happy with, namely > all the Lords of the Nine get their power directly from Asmodeus and are > therefore no threat to him at all. I liked it better when Asmo had to *work* > to keep his position in the heirarchy and that other could conceivably > threaten his place as "Lord of Hell". Another bit of weirdness is that > non-believers go to Hell... What's that all about?
> I picked up Vortex of Madness the other day and I've just had a chance to > thumb through it. I like it. I like the Greyhawk tie-in (I play a > Greyhawk/Planescape game) and overall the planar locales seem pretty > interesting.
> > I love > > Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex > of > > Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
> Now Guide to Hell did some wacky things I wasn't too happy with, namely > all the Lords of the Nine get their power directly from Asmodeus and are > therefore no threat to him at all. I liked it better when Asmo had to *work* > to keep his position in the heirarchy and that other could conceivably > threaten his place as "Lord of Hell". Another bit of weirdness is that > non-believers go to Hell... What's that all about?
This is the one that pissed me off the most. It totally screws over the Athars and to a smaller extent, the "Believers of the Source". It also screws over the largest human empire in Spelljammer (The Theocracy of Man). It made little sense. Especially in the sense that from "On Hallowed Ground" it mentions that some pantheons came about after the creation of their followers. Thus, what happens to the people who existed on Prime Material Planes that don't have a creator pantheon.
> 1) Ego-centric editors and authors that are trying to promote themselves to > demi-god status by having their opinions and wants override long-standing > rules set by the game creators.
I wonder how you came to this conclusion. And what long-standing rules are you talking about?
> And another thing...do I *really* need to > see another article from Chris Perkins or one more damm picture/art of Sean > Reynolds??!?!
All comments about Chris aside (OK, three ... he's a great designer, produces a great magazine, and runs a kick-ass D&D game), but when was the last time you saw a picture of me in a TSR publication? Yes, I was on the Silver Anniversary tour, and one article talked about it and had a photo of me, but that's it since about 1996. Or are you assuming that any bald person you see in a photo or illustration is of _me_? Sounds like you neeh to work on your facial recognition skills. :) (Hint: people can photograph or draw bald people other than me)
> Please guys, the publications aren't there to build up your > fragile egos
Whose fragile egos? Mine is nigh-invulnerable. :)
>and small worlds!
What small worlds do you mean?
> (And "no" I have never submitted anything to > TSR for rejection...just had opportunity to meet and observe the arrogant > b*stards at GenCon for several sessions).
You are assuming that the way we act at conventions (in front of 20,000 strangers when we're working 10 hours a day on no sleep with jet lag) is how we act under normal circumstances.
> Just my humble opinion of the lot. > Two words for the aboved mentioned...grow hair.
And what if we can't? What if I'm going bald? Or would you tell Keith Strohm to "grow an arm" if you got sick of seeing him?
> 2) TSR is about making money. Whether under Lorraine The <insert expletive > here>, or the current regime, make no mistake that TSR is about money.
... like most businesses. If a game company doesn't make money, it goes out of business, and can't make money any more. Note TSR in 1997, West End Games in 1998, and other game companies in 1999. The designers & editors (who make no decisions about money) continue to create great game products, and the managers (who make no decisions about the games are designed) take care of the monef side of things.
> Its a > business, not a hobby.
It's a business run by hobbyists. Fortunately, at WotC the hobbyists in charge also know about how to run a business, unlike former management.
> That's why they destroyed a truck load of original > (and mint condition collector) D&D and AD&D items instead of saturating > their market base by releasing them to the public (can't quote source for > secrecy purposes, but it happened).
"For secrecy purposes"?? Wow, even _I_ hadn't heard this. Unless you're referring to large numbers of backstock product that wasn't selling anyway. (You know the stuff that you see sitting on the shelves week after week? It's like that everywhere, and we had even more at the warehouse. We finally stopped spending money on warehousing it). Or would you rather TSR dump another 200,000 copies of old product into the retail stores so that there's no space for anything new - just the stuff you've browsed through six times and decided not to get?
> Bottom line: Planescape is not making them money, and that is why they will > drop it.
That's a smart decision. Any company that continues to produce products that are not profitable is going to go out of business. So, which is better: (1) a company that produces all the products that you want and then goes out of business, or (2) a company that produces some of the products you want (and products that other people want, too) and continues to be in business year after year.
> This same reason explains why they are no longer creating modules
(note, this refers only to the _small_ adventures - 32, 48, or even 64 pages) Because they're really unprofitable, and we'd rather spend that money on other sorts of products that more people want. Meanwhile, Dungeon Adventures magazine will have expanded content, which will take the place of the small adventures.
> (as per a post by the VP (who is rather nice, IMO...and even tho you didn't > keep your word to get me into 3E beta testing you are still alright in my > book - ball dropper)). Despite their rantings about the company being run by > gamers for gamers,
Which it is - most of the people at WotC are gamers.
> they are greedy ego-centric game-designer-wanna-bes > (exclude Skip Williams on that one)
How can you be a game designer "wanna-be"? Practically every person on this newsgroup is a game designer - most just haven't been paid for it. A "wanna-be" would be someone who wanted to write RPG stuff, but couldn't.
Oh, and the RPG fans and RPG industry people obviously disagree with your estimation of some of our designers, considering that they have voted TSR products to be winners of Origins awards (including Bruce Cordell's Return to the Tomb of Horrors). No wanna-be, there.
-- Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth Want a self-contained tropical campaign setting with savages, ancient empires, slavers, xenophobes, and yuan-ti? Try THE SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, an accessory written by yours truly; follow the "My Published Game Products" link on my web page: http://www.seankreynolds.com
Aristotle wrote: > >Does anyone else find it ironic that TSR would license a CRPG in a setting > >they are getting rid of that would turn out to be one of the best in > >existence?
> Its not ironic at all. It goes to show that TSR is still desperately in need > of management that has a clue.
Or: work started on TORMENT back in 1996 and TSR only decided to close the planescape logo last year. You're asking TSR to predict the future - and more precisely, you're asking _pre-WotC management_ to predct the future. :)
-- Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth Want a self-contained tropical campaign setting with savages, ancient empires, slavers, xenophobes, and yuan-ti? Try THE SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, an accessory written by yours truly; follow the "My Published Game Products" link on my web page: http://www.seankreynolds.com
In article <38889755.3CFE4...@earthlink.net>, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds <"news"@@@seankreynolds.com> wrote:
>Or: work started on TORMENT back in 1996 and TSR only decided to close >the planescape logo last year. You're asking TSR to predict the future - >and more precisely, you're asking _pre-WotC management_ to predct the >future. :)
Anyway, if Planescape is to have a "final" product, I'd have to say, Torment makes a damn fine eulogy. Torment has the best plot of any CRPG I've ever seen. Ever.
> > I love > > Planescape (I'm running a campaign right now) but Guide to Hell and Vortex > of > > Madness turned out to be practically useless to me.
> Now Guide to Hell did some wacky things I wasn't too happy with, namely > all the Lords of the Nine get their power directly from Asmodeus and are > therefore no threat to him at all. I liked it better when Asmo had to *work* > to keep his position in the heirarchy and that other could conceivably > threaten his place as "Lord of Hell". Another bit of weirdness is that > non-believers go to Hell... What's that all about?
I have no idea. Maybe it was a sop thrown to the 'moral majority'. Maybe the designer himself thinks "unbeliever = amoral", like (too) many other Americans. Maybe he was just trying to harmonise the Nine Hells more with the traditional perception of Dante's Inferno, and got sloppy (my personal opinion). All and all, he fucked up and yes, I was offended. (I didn't mention it at the time because, hey, why start a new flamewar.)
If Planescape types *really* feel like placing atheist petitioners, I'd start with the basic fac... well, my semi-reasoned opinion anyway... that atheism is inherently not a "lawful" philosophy. Most atheists and humanists I know do not trust authority; they are highly libertarian. (I'm one of them.) On the other side of the coin, obedience usually has to be enforced, and religion is a cheap way to threaten people the government otherwise can't.
Philosophically, theistically-heutral people (can we call them "secular humanists"?) would gravitate to the Sensates; moderate unbelievers to the Athar; and the really hard-core, if-God-ain't-dead-let's-kill-Him anti-theists to the Revolutionary League. (That covers the ground from good to evil and moderate to extreme, anyway.)
I have about as much use for "guide to hell" as I did for "warriors of heaven", which is to say none.
-- -- Zimri *********** "There is no need to take your soul," said the emissary, with an ominous rumble as of departing storm in the desolate night. "Remain here with the lepers, or return to Pornos and his goats, as you will: it matters little. At all times and in all places your soul shall be part of the dark empire of Thasaidon." -- "Xeethra", Clark Ashton Smith http://members.xoom.com/eldritchdark/wri/short/xeethra.html
> A'koss wrote: > > Yup, this is where I'm hangin' my hat again. ;) I've decided to focus on > > just one D&D ng and this is still the best one out there IMO.
> Yah, well, it is the one *I* hang out on... ;^)
Who are you again...?
;)
> Welcome back A'koss!
> - Ron ^*^
Thanks! Dang, it looks like I missed the whole Mages vs Swords thing! That means I'll have to wait 2, possibly 3 weeks before it comes up again... *sigh*
|
