Interest in Planescape created?
eds...@my-deja.com
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."
mage...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
material about the planes under the standard DnD title...they are dropping the
mane though...got the tsr website to find out more
Eric and Kara Noah
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.
Eric Noah
Staffan Johansson wrote:
> mage...@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 (bal...@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.
--
eric...@mailbag.com
Home: http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/noahsark.htm
D&D 3E: http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/dandd3e.htm
Funkengruven
That's because TSR is governed by two elements:
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...
<eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:38861...@news2.one.net...
Coik
>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
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
Staffan Johansson
>
> 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
Werebat
>
> **HATE MESSAGE ALERT**
>
> That's because TSR is governed by two elements:
>
> 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."
- Dak'kon, "Planescape: Torment"
Staffan Johansson
>
> Oh, NOW I get it. You're a troll.
It took you *that* long?
Steven James (Silverblade)
Sorry, just had to say thanks for all yer great work :)
Eric and Kara Noah <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:38865ED6...@mailbag.com...
> 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.
>
> Eric Noah
>
> Staffan Johansson wrote:
>
> > mage...@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 (bal...@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.
>
Steven James (Silverblade)
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.
Aristotle
>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.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
VoiceOfDoom
"Funkengruven" <funken...@tconl.com> wrote:
> **HATE MESSAGE ALERT**
Dude, you need to take a long, hard look at some of your base
assumptions.
--
This message was brought to you by the Voice of Doom.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sbe...@dowco.com
> **HATE MESSAGE ALERT**
>
> That's because TSR is governed by two elements:
>
> 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.
Scott Bennie
A'koss
> 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.
A'koss!
Eric and Kara Noah
picking up tidbits like the rest of us beggars! :)
Eric
A'koss wrote:
> "Eric and Kara Noah" <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> news:3887A399...@mailbag.com...
>
> > A'koss! You're alive! (just got done reading your farewell speech on the
> 3E
> > board again... :)
> >
> > Eric
>
> 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!
James Robinson
> **HATE MESSAGE ALERT**
**NETIQUETTE ALERT**
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.
Troll.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Werebat
> 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!
Eric and Kara Noah
board again... :)
Eric
A'koss wrote:
> "Eric and Kara Noah" <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
A'koss
> A'koss! You're alive! (just got done reading your farewell speech on the
3E
> board again... :)
>
> Eric
Yup, this is where I'm hangin' my hat again. ;) I've decided to focus on
Allister Huggins
>
> > 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.
Allister H.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Funkengruven wrote:
>
> **HATE MESSAGE ALERT**
>
> That's because TSR is governed by two elements:
>
> 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
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
> >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. :)
Peter Seebach
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.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Zimri
news:F5Nh4.17597$A5.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> "Eric and Kara Noah" <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> news:38865ED6...@mailbag.com...
>
> > 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
"Werebat" <hes...@etal.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:388800...@etal.uri.edu...
> 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*
A'koss!
GreenRonin
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'.>>
Um, no. That was certainly not the intent.
<<Maybe the designer himself thinks "unbeliever = amoral", like (too)
many other Americans.>>
That would be quite a trick, as I am an atheist myself.
<<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).>>
No, again. Sorry. :)
<<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.)>>
You're certainly free no to like it, but saying I fucked up is rather
overstating the case.
What I was trying to do with Asmodeus was to make him a more mythic figure. In
the old Monster Manual, Asmodeus is a big monster with a ruby wand that you can
kill if you're enough of a badass. Hardly appropriate for the ruler of Hell.
His backstory was developed to make him into a real Adversary. He's not just
one planar bad guy, like all the other planar bad guys. He predates the rule of
belief on the planes, and so operates by slightly different rules.
That said, his creation story was presented as flavor text for people just like
yourself. If you don't care for this story, then the excerpt that begins the
book is simply false. Asmodeus is the Lord of Lies, eh?
<<I have about as much use for "guide to hell" as I did for "warriors of
heaven", which is to say none.>>
Sorry you didn't care for it, but you can't please all the people all the time.
Best,
Chris Pramas
WotC
A'koss
"Allister Huggins" <alhu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3887E3AC...@home.com...
> 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.
All good points Allister, particularly regarding the Athar. The Factol's
Manifesto made them one of the most interesting factions to join and now
they're simply McHappy Meals for Asmodeus?!?
No.
I don't think so.
Not in my campaign.
A'koss!
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>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... ;^)
In your case, shouldn't that be "we"? ;-)
>Welcome back A'koss!
He was gone?
Must have been the RCMP.
<g>
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
A'koss
"Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JT5i4.4458$L4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> 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 think all these factions would have their own "hard-core" cells of
anti-theists including the Doomguard and the Fated. I like some of your
rationales though, I think I'll have to steal this. ;)
> I have about as much use for "guide to hell" as I did for "warriors of
> heaven", which is to say none.
Yeah, Faces of Evil: The Fiends is what I go by for Lower Planar
inspiration. Warriors of Heaven saw a little use IMC, but that's about it.
A'koss!
A'koss
"GreenRonin" <green...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000121193907...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> What I was trying to do with Asmodeus was to make him a more mythic
figure. In
> the old Monster Manual, Asmodeus is a big monster with a ruby wand that
you can
> kill if you're enough of a badass. Hardly appropriate for the ruler of
Hell.
You'll find that there are two schools of thought on this. One is your
philosophy where the major bad guys are untouchable and are more of a
backdrop or background influence, ever out of reach. This isn't necessarily
a bad thing as it can be less disruptive on the campaign. The other is that
making the Lords of the Nine (including Asmodeus) "killable" by PCs. This
can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to Asmodeus
on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign! I'm
of the latter philosophy where years of carefully nuturing a campaign, to
the point where the PCs are near-demigods themselves, that there could be
the "ultimate" campaign-redefining challenge.
This is why I liked the idea of the old school Gods who were "touchable".
Now I don't mean permenantly killable per se (perhaps only by some singular
artifact), but that Gods have to take on some sort of physical form in order
to interact with their environment - even on their home plane. And to take a
physical form you have to accept it's limitations - no out-of-the-blue
"insta-kills" against very high level characters. Although only an extreme
character should be able to survive the wrath of a god for more than a
couple of rounds... ;) 3e particulary lends itself to "stating" very
powerful beings. Certainly much, *much* better than any previous edition.
(hint, hint, nudge, nudge...)
The name of my game is to have *fun* and when you start placing the cool
bad guys out of reach of the campaign you take something away. Just MO.
> His backstory was developed to make him into a real Adversary. He's not
just
> one planar bad guy, like all the other planar bad guys. He predates the
rule of
> belief on the planes, and so operates by slightly different rules.
That's a cool idea, but I'd rather have a shadowy unknown figure (like
Tharizdun) be this "Adversary" rather than Asmodeus.
Just some things to think about...
A'koss!
NikChick
>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.)
>
I'm cranky today, so I shouldn't be replying to posts on Usenet, but I'm sure
it will be the least of my mistakes in life, so here's my two cents:
I have a better idea than most of what sorts of trials and tribulations have
gone into the blasted products like the freaking Guide to Hell. It is a
product, assigned to an author. The Brand managers of TSR tell those authors
what the book has to be like, what it has to contain, some specific things that
it must reference. Sometimes, that "vision" changes MULTIPLE times between
when the project is conceived and written and when it finally sees print
(especially on a schedule like TSR runs, where things are started sometimes two
years in advance!). Sometimes these poor authors are told that a product is
going to be one way, only to have it completely changed around to something
completely different after it leaves the author's hands!
Often times on this particular newsgroup, the authors of said products are
lambasted for everything from "missing" the very important details of XYZ
Dragon article or ABC First Edition product, to just plain "fucking up" for
writing something that someone doesn't personally find thrilling or useful.
Frankly, I find it just sickening and disheartening, and a shame. I am deeply
sorry for every single one of the creative talents at TSR, because not only are
they shackled by the corporate structure of their employers, not only do they
have details of projects forced upon them for *them* to take heat over, not
only do they have to wait for *years* for their work to see print *if* it is
going to see print (god, how I pity every single person who has put months of
work into a project that was then canceled for corporate-bottomline reasons!),
but then they have to face the criticism of people who buy the products as
well.
Guide to Hell in particular has been criticized by old guard as being a
"rehash" because tried to get all the relevent material in one book, and then
the truly *new* material is also criticized for being, I don't know what... "a
sop thrown to the moral majority." There was apparently no possible way for
Chris to "win" on this book because no one was happy with it.
It's days like this when I wonder why I bother working in gaming at all.
Dejectedly yours,
Nicole
Warning: It's possible that I've come to hold my opinions through personal
connections and experiences with actual people in the real world! Imagine
that.
GreenRonin
>philosophy where the major bad guys are untouchable and are more of a
>backdrop or background influence, ever out of reach. This isn't necessarily
>a bad thing as it can be less disruptive on the campaign. The other is that
>making the Lords of the Nine (including Asmodeus) "killable" by PCs. This
>can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to Asmodeus
>on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign! I'm
>of the latter philosophy where years of carefully nuturing a campaign, to
>the point where the PCs are near-demigods themselves, that there could be
>the "ultimate" campaign-redefining challenge.
>
You'll note that all of the Lords of the Nine except Asmodeus are statted out
and "touchable" in the Guide to Hell.
Best,
Chris Pramas
Led Mirage
<skr...@earthlink.net> 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. :)
Wasn't the closing of the PS line POST WOTC? I distinctly remember PS
products being put out even after the aquisition and WOTC is fully in
charge of TSR. Anyway, saying that one computer game will save the pen
and paper product line is silly.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Led Mirage wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:28:51 GMT, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
> <skr...@earthlink.net> 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. :)
>
> Wasn't the closing of the PS line POST WOTC?
Note what Aristotle said:
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?
Thus, thinking it ironic that TSR would grant a license to a PS CRPG
back in 1996 (when the PS line would later be closed before the CRPG
came out) implies precognition on the behalf of the _old_ management,
not the current management.
Zimri
> >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.)
NikChick:
:::explaining how hard a TSR author's job is:::
> but then they have to face the criticism of people who buy the
products as
> well.
Er, Nicole, almost every book you see in the bookstore is a labour of
love by some poor slob at a keyboard. Most novels take years to write.
And then they come out and somewhere, sometime, a critic is going to
criticise them. They might not say "he fucked up" in so many words,
although some might. They *do* say, "this portion right here was a
mistake".
> Guide to Hell in particular has been criticized by old guard as
being a
> "rehash" because tried to get all the relevent material in one book,
and then
> the truly *new* material is also criticized for being, I don't know
what... "a
> sop thrown to the moral majority."
No. That statement was not a criticism. It was an explanation for the
flaw brought out in criticisms *already posted*. I suspected it "may
be" an attempt to placate theists. I also thought it was more likely
the fu - okay, let's be nice, the "unwanted feature" was accidental.
> There was apparently no possible way for
> Chris to "win" on this book because no one was happy with it.
Well, maybe someone, somewhere *was* happy with it. I happen to think
it had a flaw. I was confident enough in my assessment to *call* it a
flaw. The flaw was enough to turn me off the entire book, making it of
little use to me. That part was personal reaction. Why I think it was
this flawed is beyond the scope of this post.
I'd give you the reason but I really doubt you'd care to hear it. You
and I have different perspectives on what constitutes the worth of an
object. Mine is economic. Yours is, frankly, Marxist. I could argue
til my fingers fell off about how this product didn't work, making
myself look like a bully in the process, and all you'd have to do is
repeatedly dismiss those arguments as secondary to the effort spent in
creating it. This amounts to a religious dispute and it is not worth
my time.
> It's days like this when I wonder why I bother working in gaming at
all.
Or any field where people are judged on their output.
> Dejectedly yours,
> Nicole
> Warning: It's possible that I've come to hold my opinions through
personal
> connections and experiences with actual people in the real world!
When I buy a product I am not buying "personal connections and
experiences with actual people". I am not buying labour. I am buying a
product. (See why I brought up Das Kapital?) If it does not meet up
with my expectations, I am going to complain.
>Imagine that.
Ooh, sarcasm. That really showed me.
I have at least as much right to complain about his product (which I
paid for in cash and time) as you have to complain about my post
(which you paid for in time only, and less of it).
--
-- Zimri
***********
who knows he's going to hear it from all the other touchy-feely
whiners in the NG, just like last time he flushed them out... yes,
YHBT.
bluez
> I'd start with the basic fac... well, my semi-reasoned opinion
> anyway... that atheism is inherently not a "lawful" philosophy. Most
I would strongly disagree. I think that it might not have to do anything
with being lawfull or being chaotic. There are two approaches to being an
atheist:
1. there's no god, so if we all do good and work together we make this a
better world so as long as we live we will live happy
2. there's no god, so why would I care what happens after I die? let's do
anything to anybody as long as my personal life gets better
> 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.
So I shouldn't buy them? (I have been tempted to complete my info on
PlaneScape to buy _Guide to Hell_, _Warriors of Heaven_ and ehm... that
'vortex' thingy. Do you know if there's an in depth review of any of these
products somewhere on the web?
(If only to size up the competition :-))
bluez
myself, but would love to have a description) this product would in fact
contradict several of the other PlaneScape products. If anything is about
belief AND action in the PlaneScape universe, then there's somethng wrong
indeed. Looking at non-believers, if they believe hard enough there is
nothing, then there is nothing and they wouldn't go to hell or any other
place, they would simply stop existing. Because THAT's what they are
believing in, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3887E3AC...@home.com...
> A'koss wrote:
> >
> > "Eric and Kara Noah" <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> > news:38865ED6...@mailbag.com...
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Allister H.
Darrell King
::: Re: A Guide to Hell :::
zimri wrote:
<< Well, maybe someone, somewhere *was* happy with it. >>
Um, that would be MY cue. _I_ was quite happy with it, primarily
BECAUSE parts of it contradicted Planescape 'canon.'
Personally, I view the Planescape setting as an abomination. The only
Planescape products I purchased were the Monster Manuals, and that only
because I wanted non-'3-hole-punched' copies of the 2e stats for the
Outer Planar critters. I run planar adventures IMC, but I use the 1e
'Manual of the Planes' to do so. 'A Guide to Hell' (and 'Warriors of
Heaven,' as well, BTW) seemed to me to be closer in spirit to the
first-edition cosmology, a move which I heartily applaud, and sincerely
hope will continue into the advent of any planes-related product for 3e.
Regards,
Darrell King
(who routinely chases anyone spouting that pseudo-Victorian street slang
'cant' out into the dark of night with my trusty blade)
Allister Huggins
>
> ::: Re: A Guide to Hell :::
>
> zimri wrote:
>
> << Well, maybe someone, somewhere *was* happy with it. >>
>
> Um, that would be MY cue. _I_ was quite happy with it, primarily
> BECAUSE parts of it contradicted Planescape 'canon.'
>
> Personally, I view the Planescape setting as an abomination. The only
> Planescape products I purchased were the Monster Manuals, and that only
> because I wanted non-'3-hole-punched' copies of the 2e stats for the
> Outer Planar critters. I run planar adventures IMC, but I use the 1e
> 'Manual of the Planes' to do so. 'A Guide to Hell' (and 'Warriors of
Given that Guide to the Astral/Ethereal/Inner planes are all great
products, you are missing a lot of good stuff.
> Heaven,' as well, BTW) seemed to me to be closer in spirit to the
> first-edition cosmology, a move which I heartily applaud, and sincerely
A.K.A., let's turn the planes into a big dungeon.
> hope will continue into the advent of any planes-related product for 3e.
>
> Regards,
> Darrell King
>
> (who routinely chases anyone spouting that pseudo-Victorian street slang
> 'cant' out into the dark of night with my trusty blade)
For one small city?
Allister H.
Staffan Johansson
>
> can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to Asmodeus
> on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign! I'm
And what would you do afterwards?
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@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.
Aristotle
>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?
>
>Thus, thinking it ironic that TSR would grant a license to a PS CRPG
>back in 1996 (when the PS line would later be closed before the CRPG
>came out) implies precognition on the behalf of the _old_ management,
>not the current management.
Uh, you misquoted. I didn't post the above statement.
-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.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
bluez
:-)
--
( lost me? find me! http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8257 )
Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3889B582...@crosswinds.net...
bluez
to hell' with the batezu? Or do I have it utterly wrong?
A'koss
"bluez" <bl...@celestial.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:948557978.20097....@news.demon.nl...
> Ehm, I'm a bit lost. Is 'faces of evil' dealing with the tanarri and
'guide
> to hell' with the batezu? Or do I have it utterly wrong?
Guide to Hell is strictly about Baatezu, Faces of Evil is an overview of
all Fiends.
A'koss!
A'koss
"Staffan Johansson" <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3889B582...@crosswinds.net...
> A'koss wrote:
> >
> > can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
Asmodeus
> > on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign!
I'm
>
> And what would you do afterwards?
It's Miller Time.
A'koss! ;)
A'koss
> You'll note that all of the Lords of the Nine **except Asmodeus** are
statted out
> and "touchable" in the Guide to Hell.
Although I had phrased it poorly, that was my point. Asmodeus, being "King
of the Hill", makes for the most exciting challenge and now he's out of
reach by PCs. And even though it is beyond the scope of your product taking
Demogorgon, Jubilix, Yeeognu, etc. out-of-play (read: Gods) was a mistake as
well. They're too interesting an opponant for that.
A'koss!
Werebat
>
> Darrell King wrote:
> > Regards,
> > Darrell King
> >
> > (who routinely chases anyone spouting that pseudo-Victorian street slang
> > 'cant' out into the dark of night with my trusty blade)
>
> For one small city?
Sigil is NOT a "small" city!
FWIW, I use SOME of Planescape, and SOME of Manual of the Planes. I pick
what I like, and if the players read one or the other and have their
characters make ASSUMPTIONS, it's their ass that might get burned, not
mine.
- 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."
- Dak'kon, "Planescape: Torment"
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Aristotle wrote:
>
> In article <38896537...@earthlink.net>, "news"@@@seankreynolds.com wrote:
> >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?
> >
> >Thus, thinking it ironic that TSR would grant a license to a PS CRPG
> >back in 1996 (when the PS line would later be closed before the CRPG
> >came out) implies precognition on the behalf of the _old_ management,
> >not the current management.
>
> Uh, you misquoted. I didn't post the above statement.
Right, sorry, that should have been attributed to eds...@my-deja.com
(whom you were quoting in the post I copied it from).
NikChick
<< Er, Nicole, almost every book you see in the bookstore is a labour of
love by some poor slob at a keyboard. Most novels take years to write.
And then they come out and somewhere, sometime, a critic is going to
criticise them. >>
Right. And most people writing novels are not told which minute details they
are allowed or forbidden to include... most novels are allowed to actually come
from the author, and not presented before a crowd who feel they all know more
about the subject of the novel than the author himself.
My point is not that people shouldn't criticize these roleplaying products that
they dislike. It's that people routinely fling around the blame and rest it
squarely on the shoulders of the "offending" authors, as if the authors *were*
novelists working with total creative freedoms.
They're not.
<< I'd give you the reason but I really doubt you'd care to hear it. You and I
have different perspectives on what constitutes the worth of an object. Mine is
economic. Yours is, frankly, Marxist. >>
Oh spare me.
<<I could argue
til my fingers fell off about how this product didn't work, making
myself look like a bully in the process, and all you'd have to do is
repeatedly dismiss those arguments as secondary to the effort spent in
creating it. This amounts to a religious dispute and it is not worth
my time. >>
I'm glad you're so supremely confident that after one post from me you feel you
can predict what I would do and say in the face of your arguments. You're
absolutely wrong, of course, but I'm happy to let you blow me off if it makes
you feel better.
<< Or any field where people are judged on their output. >>
AH! The *point* of my post! I am happy enough to be judged on *my* "output"
and respect the opinions of people who can give valid criticism of *my* work.
What ruffles my feathers is when I (or others) are judged for the actions,
decisions, demands and "output" of others.
Especially in the case of the current TSR, I cannot in good conscience bring
myself to make statements such as "the author fucked up" about products,
because I am aware that in far too many cases, the whole process of putting
those books out is fucked up. The corporate structure of Wizards of the Cooast
is FUCKED UP. I cannot in good conscience blame the individuals who bother to
try to do their jobs there
<< Ooh, sarcasm. That really showed me. >>
Dude, it's just my sig. It's not aimed at you in particular, it's not included
to be considered as additional commentary on your argument... just an
explanation of how I come to hold my opinions.
<< I have at least as much right to complain about his product (which I
paid for in cash and time) as you have to complain about my post
(which you paid for in time only, and less of it). >>
Go right ahead and complain. If you think you got ripped off, you *should*
complain. I'm just saying those complaints should be aimed in the right
direction.
Nicole
Warning: It's possible that I've come to hold my opinions through personal
connections and experiences with actual people in the real world! Imagine
that.
Zimri
First let me thank you for clarifying your position. Sorry about the
'Marxist' label. As you implied, it doesn't pay to be "supremely
confident... after one post from" you.
Zimri:
> << Er, Nicole, almost every book you see in the bookstore is a
labour of
> love by some poor slob at a keyboard. Most novels take years to
write.
> And then they come out and somewhere, sometime, a critic is going to
> criticise them. >>
Nicole:
> Right. And most people writing novels are not told which minute
details they
> are allowed or forbidden to include... most novels are allowed to
actually come
> from the author, and not presented before a crowd who feel they all
know more
> about the subject of the novel than the author himself.
Unless someone is writing a novel set in an established universe,
like, say, a Star Wars novel. In that case there *will* be people who
know more about the subject of the novel. George Lucas, for one. A few
of the more hardcore fans, for another. In the case of Planescape, I
daresay Colin McComb and Monte Cook. In addition, novels set in an
established setting have to follow at least the core guidelines of
that setting. If Timothy Zahn wrote one which claimed that Darth Vader
won the final duel and became the new Emperor, then Zahn should be
asked to explain his logic. Maybe a rupture in spacetime caused by the
(simultaneous?) explosions of the reactor core and Palpatine's demise.
Whatever.
There was a Far Side cartoon once where Daddy Mosquito came home in a
ruffled suit and tie and wearily said to his wife, "what a day... I
must have spread malaria over half the country". What was wrong with
this picture, and why did so many people write in and complain?
Nicole:
> My point is not that people shouldn't criticize these roleplaying
products that
> they dislike. It's that people routinely fling around the blame and
rest it
> squarely on the shoulders of the "offending" authors, as if the
authors *were*
> novelists working with total creative freedoms.
>
> They're not.
No, they *are*. They exercise their freedoms within a setting first by
agreeing to abandon some of them, in order to write according to that
setting's strictures. Chris already did so in part by calling the Lord
of the Nine "Asmodeus" instead of Ahriman, Lucifer, or Satan. Authors
cannot accept that burden and then be immune to criticism on their
handling of it. In fact, in this case the author did accept
responsibility for his creative choice; see GreenRonin's reply above.
If he wanted to make such a deviation from the norm he had the option
of writing a "Guide to Hell" which only applied to a subset of the
multiverse that did not include Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and most
of Planescape. He even would have had precedents for this. Dragonlance
merges the Nine Hells with the Abyss. Dark Sun does not use the Outer
Planes at all.
<snip>
Zimri:
> << Or any field where people are judged on their output. >>
Nicole:
> AH! The *point* of my post! I am happy enough to be judged on *my*
"output"
> and respect the opinions of people who can give valid criticism of
*my* work.
> What ruffles my feathers is when I (or others) are judged for the
actions,
> decisions, demands and "output" of others.
> Especially in the case of the current TSR, I cannot in good
conscience bring
> myself to make statements such as "the author fucked up" about
products,
> because I am aware that in far too many cases, the whole process of
putting
> those books out is fucked up. The corporate structure of Wizards of
the Cooast
> is FUCKED UP. I cannot in good conscience blame the individuals who
bother to
> try to do their jobs there
First, I have only your word of mouth that this affected the "Guide to
Hell". If this really did affect it, then let Chris say so, or ask
Chris's leather-clad whip-cracking overseer to say so. :^)
Second, I have no quarrel with WotC. I did not buy the corporate
structure of TSR. (Everyone else did.) I bought this supplement.
Third, if I wrote a book and some jerk lambasted a key part of it, I
would not want my supporters to pipe up with "it's not the author's
fault he messed up". With friends like these...
Overall, the author has already defended his position, without
recourse to TSR's editorial process. Last night I was thinking over
what I'd posted in response to your first post. To your credit, you
had understood the gist of my first post (which I failed to do in
return), in that I wasn't really criticising Chris Pramas's work, so
much as the thought processes that affected it. I'm assigning
responsibility to Chris and you're assigning responsibility to WotC's
organisation.
A few points remain, though: that part was still Chris's work, mistake
or not, and we still have the right to discuss it, postively or not.
Even if that discussion extends to how and why Chris thought it up.
-- Z
R. Serena Wakefield
Zimri wrote:
> 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.
I would see three possibilities for pigeonholing atheist petitioners:
1. As in Incarnations of Immortality, when someone who is absolutely,
positively sure there is no afterlife dies, their soul turns to dust.
If someone still harbors some belief, they go to wherever that belief
would take them. It's hard to imagine Planescape PCs not believing in
some kind of afterlife, though, considering that they can visit it if
they like.
2. Atheists end up as petitioners just like anybody else, they're just
not attached to any particular god. They would go to whatever plane
their alignment dictates, but in the plane's "wilds," not one of the
realms. This works something like Philosophy clerics; they DID believe
in something, it just didn't happen to be a god.
3. Those like the Athar who believe in the Great Unknown -- i.e.,
deists -- would simply disappear after their deaths. If they're
resurrected, their soul comes back, but otherwise it's like it's totally
gone from the multiverse. Where does it go? To the Athar's Great
Unknown? Or is it just dispersed? Who can say?
A greater question would be the fate of someone who believes in
reincarnation (like the dwarves on my old campaign world). Probably
they'd get exactly what they expect, and never become petitioners. When
they reached perfection, they might go to Mechanus, the Outlands, or
just disappear.
> 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.)
Oh, I'm in full agreement with that, though I do think the Athar have
their share of secular humanists too (including Factor Terrance, who is
a deist, not an atheist). But it doesn't answer the question of where
they would go after their deaths, which is the big question mark for
atheists in Planescape.
NikChick
>
>Overall, the author has already defended his position, without
>recourse to TSR's editorial process. Last night I was thinking over
>what I'd posted in response to your first post. To your credit, you
>had understood the gist of my first post (which I failed to do in
>return), in that I wasn't really criticising Chris Pramas's work, so
>much as the thought processes that affected it. I'm assigning
>responsibility to Chris and you're assigning responsibility to WotC's
>organisation.
Righto.
I'd just like to further clarify: I know a lot of people at Wizards of the
Coast. I've known many of them for years. I knew many of them when they worked
for TSR in Wisconsin, or when they didn't work in the industry at all. With
that kind of knowledge, it's all too easy for me to feel protective of them as
friends and colleagues. :) It's a flaw that I'm willing to live with.
I let myself speak out, partly because I despise the Wizards of the Coast
corporate structure with every fiber of my being (not WotC as a company, not
the employees of WotC as individual, just the unbelievably fucked up manner in
which most of the actual work is done over there) for being antithetical to the
creative process in every way. It would never be professional for people like
Chris or Steve Miller, or Sean Reynolds, or Jonathan Tweet to *ever* come out
and tell the tales of woe that result in material that pisses people off. They
won't do it, and I commend them for their professionalism. *I* probably
shouldn't do it, but I've never been one to sit around when people take credit
or blame that belongs to others. I just can't stomach it.
In one recent example, an author is given a project to write. The author is
told that the product is going to be "branded" a core product and writes it
accordingly. Later in the process, *someone* along the way makes the decision
to slap a Greyhawk logo somewhere on the darn thing. When it comes out, the
author is suddenly lambasted by Greyhawk fans for "overlooking" something, or
for "getting wrong" something else, until there is a hysterical hue and cry
about "crimes against Greyhawk" and so on. Similar situations will also arise
with Planescape products that aren't really Planescape anymore, and so on, as
TSR winds everything into the "core" in anticipation of 3E.
With the knowledge that the principled and professional authors on the TSR side
are not going to come forward, I occasionally feel the need to speak up.
Personally, I think it's a perfectly valid creative position to occasionally
refuse to adhere to the inevitable D&D dogma. Some of us read the Asmodeus
myth and thought it was cool; others hated it. I consider this just an aspect
of personal preference for the material, rather than a quantifiable "fuck up".
If it really *is* a fuck up, then I would prefer that everyone involved be
blamed for their part, since these products go through peer-review, are
submitted to a line developer/creative director, pass through one or multiple
editors, and so on. If there is some truly greivous error that's been included
in a TSR book, there are a dozen people who could have stopped the creative
process in its tracks and stopped that error from being included.
Long-windedly yours,
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"bluez" <bl...@celestial.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:948539632.5136....@news.demon.nl...
> _Guide to Hell_... Hmmm... as you describe it (haven't seen the product
> myself, but would love to have a description) this product would in fact
> contradict several of the other PlaneScape products.
Ok, I'm comming in here at the end of this little debate. So I'll just
say what I think.
If PS'ers are pissed off at the 'new' books that contradict the PS
world, too bad. Live with it. I guess they all know what us "poor old 1st
edition whiners" felt like when PS came out and contradicted the Manual of
the Planes.
Personally, if the entier PS line went belly up I'd be celebrating
today. PS is a "cute" idea, but when the folks who were in charge of it
they really screwed the pooch. If they would have stuck with the original
layout of the planes (including the names!), and just 'built around it', it
would have had a much greater appeal and acceptance, IMO. In any world that
I run, PS and it's entier "multiverse", as well as every single 'door to
another world' sits inside an experimental sub-universe. The deities of the
*real* universe created it and are just using it as a controled experiment;
the Lady of Pain is actually the only construct/connection with the true
universe, and the deities each take turns controling her. *shrug* It lets
me sleep at night. ;-)
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Allister Huggins
>
> Hiya.
>
> "bluez" <bl...@celestial.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:948539632.5136....@news.demon.nl...
> > _Guide to Hell_... Hmmm... as you describe it (haven't seen the product
> > myself, but would love to have a description) this product would in fact
> > contradict several of the other PlaneScape products.
>
> Ok, I'm comming in here at the end of this little debate. So I'll just
> say what I think.
<snip>
> Personally, if the entier PS line went belly up I'd be celebrating
> today. PS is a "cute" idea, but when the folks who were in charge of it
> they really screwed the pooch. If they would have stuck with the original
> layout of the planes (including the names!), and just 'built around it', it
They did keep the original names. Perhaps you didn't notice that in
planescape they acknowledged that most planes were known by variant
names? As well, exactly how did planescape screw with the original
layout of the planes? The only thing different in planescape is that
they changed the idea of the planes being a huge hunting ground.
Allister H.
A'koss
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote in message
news:I4vi4.22858$A5.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> If PS'ers are pissed off at the 'new' books that contradict the PS
> world, too bad. Live with it. I guess they all know what us "poor old
1st
> edition whiners" felt like when PS came out and contradicted the Manual of
> the Planes.
Let's face it, the Manual of the Planes is hardly comprehensive. It just
made everything one high level dungeon. I also think the biggest problem
both PS and the MotP had was the changes to magic that occured when you
travel the planes. You need to have a *major* scorecard to keep track of all
the changes. I'm hoping they scrap 95% of those changes in 3e. Magic should
just "work" no matter where you are, barring the obvious restrictions -
Fireballs on the Plane of Water, etc.
> Personally, if the entier PS line went belly up I'd be celebrating
> today. PS is a "cute" idea, but when the folks who were in charge of it
> they really screwed the pooch. If they would have stuck with the original
> layout of the planes (including the names!), and just 'built around it',
it
> would have had a much greater appeal and acceptance, IMO.
PS acknowledged the the 1st ed names as the ones used on the Prime. The
new names are fine except I would've kept Hell... Hell.
PS added one thing to the planes it lacked - style. You may not like that
style but I thought that the idea of Sigil and the Factions was brilliant.
They really fleshed out some great locales in their products - Jangling
Hiter, Dis, the 3 towers of the Yugoloths, the Bebilith hive, the Dead Gods,
etc, etc... My only real gripe with the setting was it's handling of the
Celetials and Fiends. Angels and Demons hanging around in bars, becoming
merchants and acting out in the open (Shemeska/A'kin/Gabberslug)?!? Not IMC.
Evil just wasn't EVIL enough in PS. DiTerlizzi's work is generally quite
good but his "cuddly" fiends just didn't cut it.
A'koss!
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>In article <38889755...@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'll second that. The Planescape setting still strikes me as contrived,
but Torment is the best CRPG I've ever played. That takes in not just
the plot, but the writing, character development and underlying themes
as well. There's nothing contrived about this game.
--
Hong Ooi | "We do know that he decapitated himself and
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | placed his head in the freezer."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- M
Canberra, Australia |
Darrell King
<< The only thing different in planescape is that they changed the idea
of the planes being a huge hunting ground. >>
My major beef is that they relegated to being just another 'campaign
setting,' with villages and cities and all those trappings. In my view,
the planes should be a place that PCs FEAR. Something they don't even
like to THINK about.
Other things I dislike about PS:
--Characters basically losing their identities after death. It cheapens
the value of the character, IMO.
--(as I've mentioned before) That ridiculous 'cant' thrown into EVERY
friggin' PS product. I shouldn't have to check a glossary to understand
a creature's discription, a character's motivation, or a building's
purpose.
--The artwork. For all the complaints about 3e artwork, at least the
body proportions look right. DeTerlizzi's spindly armed, big-headed
stuff just never looked good to me (though he did pretty good with
certain monster drawings-not the demons and devils, though).
--The 'feel' of the setting. It was, IMO, just TOO human. Even though
the city may be made of bone, or floating in a far-off domain, or
donut=shaped and suspended over a spindly mountain, there are still
streets and taverns and inns and merchants and ...
I prefer a camaign where even simple Ethereal travel scares the HELL out
of PCs. Where a character who wears Armor of Etherealness keeps one eye
over his shoulder, lest the shambling THINGS lurkng deeper in the ether
drag him to his doom.
I prefer a campaign where a PC would rather gut himself with a rusty
spoon than open a gate to an Elemental Plane.
I prefer a campaign where 'Heaven,' 'Hell,' 'Abyss,' 'Valhalla,' etc.
mean something other than just another place to go adventuring.
And lastly, I prefer a campaign where there is no such thing as an
'Avatar,' and PCs would never CONSIDER the possibility of 'attacking' a
god.
But, that's just me, YMMV.
Regards,
Darrell King
bluez
> both PS and the MotP had was the changes to magic that occured when you
> travel the planes. You need to have a *major* scorecard to keep track of
all
That scorecard you'll find in _The Planewalker's Handbook_ :-)
> the changes. I'm hoping they scrap 95% of those changes in 3e. Magic
should
> just "work" no matter where you are, barring the obvious restrictions -
> Fireballs on the Plane of Water, etc.
Hmm, I beg to disagree. There are three kinds of magic in the AD&D game:
priest, wizard, items.
I personally think that magic is always related in some way to the person
using it. In priests this is pretty obvious, it's related to their deities,
period. In wizards it's a bit less clear. Where priests simply (ahum) draw
on their beliefd, a wizard has to work for it, and work hard for it. It
appears wizardly magic has its own set of rules, that change from world to
world, because the mechanics of magic change from world to world. From that
point of view, it wouldn't be strange that magic would behave different on
different planes. I must admit I have my doubts about the way scrolls are
handled in the game. There appears to be something wrong, but I can't put my
finger on it.
> PS added one thing to the planes it lacked - style. You may not like
that
> style but I thought that the idea of Sigil and the Factions was brilliant.
> They really fleshed out some great locales in their products - Jangling
> Hiter, Dis, the 3 towers of the Yugoloths, the Bebilith hive, the Dead
Gods,
> etc, etc... My only real gripe with the setting was it's handling of the
> Celetials and Fiends. Angels and Demons hanging around in bars, becoming
> merchants and acting out in the open (Shemeska/A'kin/Gabberslug)?!? Not
IMC.
> Evil just wasn't EVIL enough in PS. DiTerlizzi's work is generally quite
> good but his "cuddly" fiends just didn't cut it.
Ehm... real evil would probably not act up, so it could cause even more
evil. I had no problems with it.
On top of that, the product must stay playable. All evil you meet outside
the lower planes must not be too overwhelming for the players, at least they
shouldn't be killed on sight. And players, being what they are, have the
biggest chance of running into non-standard characters instead of the
regular evil guys, I guess...
bluez
the characters, or somesuch? Please tell me...
--
( lost me? find me! http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8257 )
A'koss <infi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lRki4.21244$A5.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> "bluez" <bl...@celestial.demon.nl> wrote in message
bluez
> Sigil is NOT a "small" city!
Talking about small... how large is Sigil? Geographical (square metres) and
the number of people? (Well, beings...)
A'koss
> With Guide to Hell being more geographical and Faces of Evil dealing with
> the characters, or somesuch? Please tell me...
Guide to Hell includes a bunch of little things: a bit on current events,
some kits, a sect of St. Cuthbert that deals with devils, revised turning
tables (one thing I'm not sure I like is that you can actually turn an
archdevil), a layer by layer breakdown, stats for the archdevils and a few
magic items.
Faces of Evil you can tell is a Planescape Product as each section is
written from the point of view of a Planewalker, including the ever lovable
Xanxost (a Blue Slaad). It deals with culture, physiology, promotion, major
personalities, some locales, etc.
A'koss!
A'koss
> > > For one small city?
> > Sigil is NOT a "small" city!
>
> Talking about small... how large is Sigil? Geographical (square metres)
and
> the number of people? (Well, beings...)
The city expands and contracts as need be to accomodate it's population.
It's 5 to 8 miles wide and 20 or 40 miles around depending on which source
you read. Sigil has a population of over a million.
A'koss!
A'koss
> > made everything one high level dungeon. I also think the biggest problem
> > both PS and the MotP had was the changes to magic that occured when you
> > travel the planes. You need to have a *major* scorecard to keep track of
> all
>
> That scorecard you'll find in _The Planewalker's Handbook_ :-)
Correction: That scorecard *is* the Planewalker's Handbook. ;)
> I personally think that magic is always related in some way to the person
> using it. In priests this is pretty obvious, it's related to their
deities,
> period. In wizards it's a bit less clear. Where priests simply (ahum) draw
> on their beliefd, a wizard has to work for it, and work hard for it. It
> appears wizardly magic has its own set of rules, that change from world to
> world, because the mechanics of magic change from world to world. From
that
> point of view, it wouldn't be strange that magic would behave different on
> different planes. I must admit I have my doubts about the way scrolls are
> handled in the game. There appears to be something wrong, but I can't put
my
> finger on it.
I don't see the NEED for it to be this way. It kills gameplay as you
basically have to re-stat every character: magic items, readjust the spell
lists for all clerical spellcasters and hell, I can't even remember how
scrolls are affected. Plus trying to keep track of minor and major spell
corruptions, not to mention what magic does and does not work, what attracts
the wrong attention and what limitations can be circumvented with
(un)reliable spell keys, and on and on - it's a *nightmare* for a DM. Scrap
it all I say!!
> Ehm... real evil would probably not act up, so it could cause even more
> evil. I had no problems with it.
> On top of that, the product must stay playable. All evil you meet outside
> the lower planes must not be too overwhelming for the players, at least
they
> shouldn't be killed on sight. And players, being what they are, have the
> biggest chance of running into non-standard characters instead of the
> regular evil guys, I guess...
My gripe had more to do with the fact that fiends, etc. are treated like
regular people - hanging out in bars, running businesses, etc. rather than
how overt their actions were. I have no problem with subtlety, if fact I
encourage it. However, fiends and angels are NOT people and should not be
*treated* as people in funny suits. They are the philosophies of Evil and
Good made immortal flesh. They shouldn't be at all concerned with most of
the trappings of the mortal world, just things like souls, power, etc and
would never just walk around in their true forms in front of other mortals.
You see what I'm getting at?
A'koss!
Zimri
news:16515-38...@storefull-116.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Heh. These are the standard complaints. Basically you like it or
don't.
> --The 'feel' of the setting. It was, IMO, just TOO human. Even
though
> the city may be made of bone, or floating in a far-off domain, or
> donut=shaped and suspended over a spindly mountain, there are still
> streets and taverns and inns and merchants and ...
>
> I prefer a camaign where even simple Ethereal travel scares the HELL
out
> of PCs. Where a character who wears Armor of Etherealness keeps one
eye
> over his shoulder, lest the shambling THINGS lurkng deeper in the
ether
> drag him to his doom.
>
> I prefer a campaign where a PC would rather gut himself with a rusty
> spoon than open a gate to an Elemental Plane.
>
> I prefer a campaign where 'Heaven,' 'Hell,' 'Abyss,' 'Valhalla,'
etc.
> mean something other than just another place to go adventuring.
>
> And lastly, I prefer a campaign where there is no such thing as an
> 'Avatar,' and PCs would never CONSIDER the possibility of
'attacking' a
> god.
>
> But, that's just me, YMMV.
Your opinion makes sense - actually it makes more sense than much of
Planescape. You need to go find "Gates of Firestorm Peak" by Bruce
Cordell if you haven't already. The Lovecraftian insanity of the Far
Realm sounds like exactly your kind of multiverse.
But let's stop beating on Planescape for making the planes too
mundane. D&D planes were silly long before that :^) Gygax had the
party merrily traipsing along the 66th layer of the Abyss to go kill
the Demon Queen of Spiders and Drow long before Planescape was a
twinkle in anyone's eye. And of course Manual of the Planes
dungeonified the rest of the multiverse.
Personally I like the Planescape feel and ideas, and I thought most of
the adventures were sweet. But hey, I'm all for playing in a de-PS'ed
multiverse, or Cordell's near-Cthulhu multiverse - whatever suits the
mood of DM and players.
--
-- 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
Jon Inge Teigland
> >
> > Talking about small... how large is Sigil? Geographical (square metres)
> and
> > the number of people? (Well, beings...)
>
> The city expands and contracts as need be to accomodate it's population.
>
Jon Inge Teigland
Werebat
> Your opinion makes sense - actually it makes more sense than much of
> Planescape. You need to go find "Gates of Firestorm Peak" by Bruce
> Cordell if you haven't already. The Lovecraftian insanity of the Far
> Realm sounds like exactly your kind of multiverse.
Ooooh, yesss... TGoFP is one of the best modules ever written for the
game...
> But let's stop beating on Planescape for making the planes too
> mundane. D&D planes were silly long before that :^) Gygax had the
> party merrily traipsing along the 66th layer of the Abyss to go kill
> the Demon Queen of Spiders and Drow long before Planescape was a
> twinkle in anyone's eye.
:^)
> And of course Manual of the Planes
> dungeonified the rest of the multiverse.
Sort of.
> Personally I like the Planescape feel and ideas, and I thought most of
> the adventures were sweet. But hey, I'm all for playing in a de-PS'ed
> multiverse, or Cordell's near-Cthulhu multiverse - whatever suits the
> mood of DM and players.
Or both! Cordell's multiverse set the Far Realm as "Outside" of the
Outer Planes themselves!
FWIW, even in a happy PS campaign, you don't want to go beating up
Avatars. Avatars are pieces of a god. The god has other Avatars, and it
can make more if it needs to. Gods have long memories, godlike patience,
and occasionally VERY vengeful natures. In short, even if you manage to
kill a god's avatar, you've made a very powerful enemy for what's
left of your life (and possibly afterward).
Darrell King
I do have 'Gates of Firestorm Peak,' and I think it's one of the best
modules created for AD&D--even though I have to heavily modify it, since
I don't use the Player's Option stuff. In fact, I think all of Bruce
Cordell's work is top-notch. I can only hope that WotC will have him do
a few of the eight 3e 'core' adventures.
WRT Gygax' 'invasion of the Abyss' in the 'final act' of the 'Queen of
the Demonweb Pits' stuff, I never liked that treatment, either. I use
the 1e 'Manual of the Planes' because it provides a BRIEF planar
overview, which gives me a bare bones idea upon which to base my own
planar description.
As I said, I prefer a planar cosmology that exists outside of normal
comprehension, as well as being far more dangerous and frightening to
even high-level PCs.
WRT the 'Queen' module (and the 'Deities & Demigods' and 'Legends &
Lore' books), I also dislike stats being listed for gods. IMC, even a
(theoretical) 100th-level 'Bloodstone'-type character would be
incinerated by the mere sight of a true god. (Incidentally, though I
use Greyhawk as my base world, the 'world-based' gods, such as Iuz and
Wastri, are actually other types of lower-planar beings--regardless of
what they might call themselves.)
Well, I've rattled on enough for now...
Regards,
Darrell
Mad Hamish
>
>Warning: It's possible that I've come to hold my opinions through personal
>connections and experiences with actual people in the real world! Imagine
>that.
I'm sorry, but drawing conclusions in such a manner is a breach of your
responsibilities as a usenet poster.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
TBolt7
<infi...@home.com> writes:
>> > can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
>Asmodeus
>> > on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign!
>I'm
>>
>> And what would you do afterwards?
>
> It's Miller Time.
Yeah.. if all the players are all still alive and all in the same retirement
home. Unless you're playing in a real Monty Haul game, that sort of level
should require decades of real-time playing to attain. (Oh, and only if the
retirement home allows it's retirees to drink beer...)
-----------------
...for the usual thing among men is that when they want something they will
without reflection leave that to hope, while they will employ the full force of
reason in rejecting what they find unpalateable.
-Thucydides
MLMartin98
>Cordell's work is top-notch. I can only hope that WotC will have him do
>a few of the eight 3e 'core' adventures.
>
IIRC, he's annouced that he's working on the first of them, tentatively
titled _The Sunless Citadel_ . . .
Matthew L. Martin
Werebat
> Incidentally, though I
> use Greyhawk as my base world, the 'world-based' gods, such as Iuz and
> Wastri
Ah, Wastri. How's he doing these days?
He used to play cards with BATTLEHYMN, you know.
:^)
- Ron ^*^
A'koss
"MLMartin98" <mlmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000123232651...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
I heard about this but didn't know the title. I tell ya this though, he
better be doing more than just *one*!! ;)
A'koss!
A'koss
"Werebat" <hes...@etal.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:388BF5...@etal.uri.edu...
> Zimri wrote:
>
> > Your opinion makes sense - actually it makes more sense than much of
> > Planescape. You need to go find "Gates of Firestorm Peak" by Bruce
> > Cordell if you haven't already. The Lovecraftian insanity of the Far
> > Realm sounds like exactly your kind of multiverse.
Far Realm Fun is always a part of my campaign...
> Ooooh, yesss... TGoFP is one of the best modules ever written for the
> game...
Here we are again singing the praises of TGoFP. Yup, Bruce is da man.
> > But let's stop beating on Planescape for making the planes too
> > mundane. D&D planes were silly long before that :^) Gygax had the
> > party merrily traipsing along the 66th layer of the Abyss to go kill
> > the Demon Queen of Spiders and Drow long before Planescape was a
> > twinkle in anyone's eye.
You must be kidding, that was my alter ego's finest hour! Mejin A'koss
attempts a daring backstab on the Queen of Spiders!
... Fails...
...And runs like hell! :)
> > And of course Manual of the Planes
> > dungeonified the rest of the multiverse.
>
> Sort of.
Basically.
> > Personally I like the Planescape feel and ideas, and I thought most of
> > the adventures were sweet. But hey, I'm all for playing in a de-PS'ed
> > multiverse, or Cordell's near-Cthulhu multiverse - whatever suits the
> > mood of DM and players.
>
> Or both! Cordell's multiverse set the Far Realm as "Outside" of the
> Outer Planes themselves!
Indeed. I've also scrapped the whole "crystal sphere" concept for the
return of *alternate prime* planes. But the Far Realm exists in a completely
different Multiverse.
> FWIW, even in a happy PS campaign, you don't want to go beating up
> Avatars. Avatars are pieces of a god. The god has other Avatars, and it
> can make more if it needs to. Gods have long memories, godlike patience,
> and occasionally VERY vengeful natures. In short, even if you manage to
> kill a god's avatar, you've made a very powerful enemy for what's
> left of your life (and possibly afterward).
I like the idea of Gods having to assume a physical form in order to
interact with the environment, even on their home planes. There's still a
bit of 1st dead ed. in me... ;) Not to say that Gods are killable, but at
least conceivable that they could be defeated temporarily.
A'koss!
A'koss
> WRT the 'Queen' module (and the 'Deities & Demigods' and 'Legends &
> Lore' books), I also dislike stats being listed for gods. IMC, even a
> (theoretical) 100th-level 'Bloodstone'-type character would be
> incinerated by the mere sight of a true god. (Incidentally, though I
> use Greyhawk as my base world, the 'world-based' gods, such as Iuz and
> Wastri, are actually other types of lower-planar beings--regardless of
> what they might call themselves.)
Although I'm not a fan of "insta-kill" abilities, even from Gods, in 1st
and 2nd ed it may be appropriate. First of all "Godly" abilities cannot be
stated appropriately and the fact that in 1st ed, you can run into
ridiculous levels like Bloodstone Characters. Though never fairly... In 3e,
there is an effective limit on how powerful you can become.
So now I have reversed my position. Gods can, and I think should, be
"stated". Cry of the inner power gamer... perhaps. But you can actually put
into game terms titanic stats and power in 3e where you couldn't in previous
editions other than just saying "omnipotent". I don't think that Gods should
be permenantly killable per se. (outside of some singular means perhaps).
However, I think as the *ultimate* challenge for a party would be to take it
to Lolth or Nerull, etc. and stop some mad bid for ultimate power or from
starting a Godwar by destroying them for a time. Most likely with the aid of
an artifact that was diametrically opposed to them and could ablate some of
the God's titanic power.
Oddly enough the campaings I run are quite the opposite. They're gritty,
blood, mud and sweat kinda games often against nightmarish opponants. Still,
an "average" power campaign and usually the PCs never survive beyond
mid-level. I still run that kind of game in 3e, but high level adventuring
is looking a lot more attractive now and I'm itching to test the players in
the long run.
It's getting late, I'm rambling, so I'll leave it at that... zzzzzz...
A'koss!
Eric and Kara Noah
http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/dandd3e.htm
A'koss wrote:
>
> I don't see the NEED for it to be this way. It kills gameplay as you
> basically have to re-stat every character: magic items, readjust the spell
> lists for all clerical spellcasters and hell, I can't even remember how
> scrolls are affected. Plus trying to keep track of minor and major spell
> corruptions, not to mention what magic does and does not work, what attracts
> the wrong attention and what limitations can be circumvented with
> (un)reliable spell keys, and on and on - it's a *nightmare* for a DM. Scrap
> it all I say!!
>
--
eric...@mailbag.com
Home: http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/noahsark.htm
D&D 3E: http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/dandd3e.htm
Robert Baldwin
>
>"Staffan Johansson" <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>news:3889B582...@crosswinds.net...
>> A'koss wrote:
>> >
>> > can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
>Asmodeus
>> > on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign!
>I'm
>>
>> And what would you do afterwards?
>
> It's Miller Time.
Is Steve back at WOTC?
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Darrell King wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, though I
>> use Greyhawk as my base world, the 'world-based' gods, such as Iuz and
>> Wastri
>
>Ah, Wastri. How's he doing these days?
>He used to play cards with BATTLEHYMN, you know.
BATTLEHYMN comitted the *SIN* of *GAMBLING*?!??!
<sigh>
How the mighty have fallen.
<g>
Robert Baldwin
<bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>A'koss wrote:
>>
>> can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to Asmodeus
>> on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any campaign! I'm
>
>And what would you do afterwards?
Redecorate?
A'koss
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:388cbaa9...@news.rio.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:26:16 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Staffan Johansson" <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> >news:3889B582...@crosswinds.net...
> >> >
> >> > can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
> >Asmodeus
> >> > on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any
campaign!
> >I'm
> >>
> >> And what would you do afterwards?
> >
>
> Is Steve back at WOTC?
> ;-)
Hmmm, you missed me with that one...
A'koss!
A'koss
> >>
> >> can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
Asmodeus
> >> on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any
campaign! I'm
> >
> >And what would you do afterwards?
>
Asmo's Disco Palace?
A'koss!
A'koss
"Eric and Kara Noah" <eric...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:388D20FA...@mailbag.com...
> You might be interested in one of today's scoops, A'koss! ;)
>
> http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/dandd3e.htm
Heh, heh - thanks Eric. Lets' hope these changes are in broad, butchering
strokes. ;)
Today has also been an *excellent* day on the 3e MM front - I'm actually
*giddy* with all the positive changes I've heard today. (sounds of happy
clapping... :) Now all I have to do is wait 7 months before I can share
it... ;(
A'koss!
Zimri
I hear the multiverse's best ski resort is just up a level in Caina...
and the guests can gate off to the sulphur springs apres-ski.
Staffan Johansson
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:26:16 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > It's Miller Time.
>
> Is Steve back at WOTC?
> ;-)
He's been for a long time, roughly since TSR was bought out by WOTC. He
hangs around a lot at their chat site as well. Just a pity he never
writes anything about anything I'm interested in (just a bunch of
Dragonlance or Ravenloft material, plus a GH thing or two).
Oh, and he's writing a little fiction thingy, with game mechanics being
inserted at the end of the chapters, that's being published at the
Forgotten Realms website... I think it's called the Circle of Vehlarr or
something like that.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@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.
bluez
events,
> Faces of Evil you can tell is a Planescape Product as each section is
Hmmm... appears to me I'll skip _Guide to Hell_ anyway. I might have a peek
at _Faces of Evil_ perhaps... Thanks...
( lost me? find me! http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8257 )
( wisdom comes in two flavours: hard to get and impossible to believe )
Robert Baldwin
>
>"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:388cba6d...@news.rio.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:34:44 GMT, Staffan Johansson
>> <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>>
>> >A'koss wrote:
>> >>
>> >> can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
>Asmodeus
>> >> on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any
>campaign! I'm
>> >
>> >And what would you do afterwards?
>>
>> Redecorate?
>
> Asmo's Disco Palace?
That would be Hell, allright.
Robert Baldwin
>
>"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:388cbaa9...@news.rio.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:26:16 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Staffan Johansson" <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3889B582...@crosswinds.net...
>> >> A'koss wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > can actually add a lot of fun to the game. Being able to take it to
>> >Asmodeus
>> >> > on his home plane would be the penultimate achievement for any
>campaign!
>> >I'm
>> >>
>> >> And what would you do afterwards?
>> >
>> > It's Miller Time.
>>
>> Is Steve back at WOTC?
>> ;-)
>
> Hmmm, you missed me with that one...
Defeat Asmodeus.
It's Miller Time.
Steve Miller.
Steve Miller as Supreme Ruler of WOTC.
<sigh> ;-)