All right, sounds good 
When I get off work tomorrow, I'll send an email or PM or something to you.
4e, will anyone use it?
Like I said in the other thread, I don't think that 4th ed is particularly incompatible with Planescape. That said, it will definitly take some work to run Planescape with it (precisly how much work depends on what you do, of course, but may include Faction powers, paths, destinies, etc; new races, new monsters, and mechanics for the interaction of Planar alignment with character alignment).
So, a poll.
- 1922 reads
Mon, 2008-09-15 18:03
#3
All right, sounds good When
Mon, 2008-09-15 11:44
#4
Little known fact, but
Little known fact, but rilmani are skilled at necromancy, too.
I've been running a 4e Planescape game for a couple of months now and there is little difference in the game style. It's all in how the DM delivers it. 4e does lend itself very nicely to an action-oriented approach, but that is not an inherently bad thing. It simply means you have to be creative in determining how to use the rules to suit your purposes. And really, you don't have to do all that much extra.
I do agree with the above that 4e should be derived from 2e rather than morphed from 3e. 4e is very standardized and while that has its faults, it has a key benefit in that one can "upgrade" to 4e very easily. It's also standalone and doesn't really require 3e to upgrade. 2e was the original flavor and style of Planescape, so it may be worthwhile to revisit it and see how much one can build up from there.
The "item" path makes some sense to me. But even more to the point, magic items are VERY lackluster compared to their 3e, or even 2e counterparts. A lot more emphasis is placed on the character's own abilities, so players getting "special powers" instead of "magic items" are not missing too much. And if the powers are kept in line with other item powers, the opposite should also hold true.
Hm, not entirely sure where I was going with that, but one has to be chaotic sometimes to maintain the balance.
On a similar note, is there still call for developers on making PS4E? I would be interested in helping out on that side, graduate school notwithstanding. 4E appeals to me more strongly than 3E because it is simpler and smoother. While I feel there's a chunk of flavor and feel lost in 4E overall and the game is an awful lot like playing a video game, I think it makes up for the loss by being a more streamlined system overall.
Mon, 2008-09-15 17:31
#5
Center of All wrote:
On a
On a similar note, is there still call for developers on making PS4E? I would be interested in helping out on that side, graduate school notwithstanding.
Sure, I've been developing bits of Planescape elements for 4E mechanics here and there. (Example on baatezu take).
Currently, I'm thinking of doing some general skill challenge models for navigating the styx within certain regions, tracking a petitioner based on knowledge about its former life, investigating Sigil planar connections to get where you need, and other such scenarios that happen in Planescape.
Tue, 2008-08-19 21:51
#6
I've played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5,
I've played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and fourth, and I have to say, I can't play fourth and feel like I'm still playing D&D. I'll never touch that system again.
Mon, 2008-09-08 15:36
#7
[/suspend lurker
[/suspend lurker mode]
IMHO, 4E kicks so much "expletive goes here"!!! (Just so my point of view is clear.)
This being said, I would like to present the opinion that a conversion to PS4E should be converted from PS2E.
For me 3.x was a great game, but it severly wounded (wanted to say kill, but you guys prevented that possibility) PS - the system was a chore to convert and a great deal of flavour that was bound in the mechanics (as 2E was wont to do) just could not be converted to my satisfaction.
I salute the awesome work that was done on this site. It is mind-boggling in it's scope! But my PS campaing was never able to survive the 3.x shift and still have the same feel - and what is PS about if not feel?!
On the other hand, especially on the monster front, I see 4E as being a breeze to "planescape-ify". The simpler and "free-er" system for creature creation lends itself very well to my view of the setting.
As for factions... I'm pretty tempted to go with the "item" route. If the "powers" gained through faction allegiance are molded to be inline with the strength of effects from items, they can easily be included as "magic items" - the cost would come from treasure parcels transformed into the "reputation/goodwill/implication" required to advance in the faction when characters perform tasks that benefit their faction (or at their direct request.) This should retain balance : - faction characters get their faction abilities - non-faction characters get slightly more or better "loot" : they compensate with an added trinket here or there.
In the worst case scenario, on of the players feels cheated... and, well that would "expletive here". In the best case scenario, this re-enforces the idea that belonging to a faction is not just a power-boost, it takes effort and sacrifice : belief isn't easy - it's work.
I prefer this to feats and such because, while still tied to level, it is not so explicitely tied to level : a character that decides to invest fully into his faction, doing nothing but work for it, will rise in it and gain the appropriate benefits in an organic manner. A character that needs a feat will have to raise in level to get the ability... - in one case, you work for your faction and gain abilities and standing in as a result of your work (you will, of course, gain levels - but that is not the requirement, it's almost a second reward.) - in the other, you need to reach a certain power level and then you get the results...
The difference may be cosmetic, but I can't seem to shake it... It's like having the bulls push or pull the cart : both will get you moving but one just feels wrong.
... and... yeah, this post is getting out of hand - sorry.
My 2cp.
[/resume lurker mode]
Fri, 2008-08-08 12:56
#8
Hell yay, I'm playing crap
Hell yay, I'm playing crap out of that bitch! Seriously, though, I don't really see how it's impossible to play Planescape under these conditions. It's pretty much saying that the multiverse is still virtually unexplored and opens up new experiences to players. Of course, they could still be inhabitated, which offers even more to experience. Feels kinda win-win, to me anyway
Wed, 2008-07-30 14:34
#9
I'm currently using 4E for
I'm currently using 4E for my planescape game. I find that the ruels run more smoothly, and there are often less rules questions (this may be because my 3.5 campaigns had so may rulebooks to draw from). I have had one complaint from my party wizard player that there aren't any more enchantment, charm person/animal/etc. Because he believes these spells to be a panacea for all the party's problems, I really don't feel bad that they aren't available. I was a little disappointed to see that 4e pretty much pulled any spell that has ever possibly posed a rules question. It seems that rather than wanting to simplify or clarify certain rules the 4e design team just threw out whatever didn't work for them. I was heartened at first to see that they came out with a Dragon article with optional illusion spells, but was disappointed when these turned out to merely be attacks spells wrapped in illusions. The really illusion being that they had added a new rule, instead of dressing up a different attack.
I have promised said player that I would attempt to homebrew some 4e enchantment/illusion spells, but I'm still trying to figure out how to fit that in the rules system. I've got to plumb the depths of the monster manual to see if anything got good old charm powers. Otherwise I just leave it up to role-playing, the problem being that the player in question (and most of my players sadly) don't have the charisma to even role-play a charismatic character. "Why have charisma, when you can charm anyone you bump into?" That's my player's philosophy anyway.
Other than those issues, minor to me as I've stated, I just replace the 4e fluff, with the 2e fluff. None of my PCs have joined any of the factions, so I'm not worried about giving them any benefits yet. If they do I may give benefits as bonuses similar to the sample regional benefits in the Forgotten Realms excerpt WotC released, or perhaps offer them as a feat or something similar. Being that any PCs that join factions in the game would start out as Namers, I figure I have ample time to work it out.
Tue, 2008-07-08 04:33
#10
No way am I going to spend
No way am I going to spend this kind of money for buying the same old crap once again!
Maybe WotC thinks we are gullible enough to think this is all "improvement", and not just a way to milk us a bit more, but I'm not willing to be part of that. I'm running with a hybrid 3/4, and will never change. NEVER!! I just don't see why! I don't play the game for the rules (as time goes by, we even use them less and less - fighting and rolling dices becomes bothersome after a time) I play for the game. Give me more fluff I can buy (and that makes sense) I'll buy it, make me learn new rules, and I won't buy it! I'm no geek enough to think that learning a new abstract rule system will improve my life in any way.
Thu, 2008-06-12 14:48
#11
4e, will anyone use it?
Funny - a buddy of mine wants to start up a game but he wants to use 2nd edition rules. So we're moving in the other direction it seems. 
Fri, 2008-08-08 08:52
#12
Yeah I use to play 2e a lot
Yeah I use to play 2e a lot back in highschool etc... sooo many rules 3e really streamlined, but you lost a lot of things too I felt like with the switch, lol Since I haven't had the chance to even do an adventure in 2 years I forgot how to play by both rules, lol. but yeah there is a wealth of knowledge out there in 2e. MMM makes me want to buy out of print box sets of planescape off of ebay, lol.
Thu, 2008-06-12 16:02
#13
4E Planescape
Changing the monsters isn't hard at all! Terms like "Fey", "Devil", "Elemental", etc. DO NOT have any effect on the creatures statistics, so it's easy to alter them (and the term "Elemental" attached to Demons just indicates their origin in the Elemental Chaos... it doesn't make them Elementals!!!) As far as the Planes go, just use the normal descriptions from Planescape and add any appropriate enviromental conditions (i.e. characters on the Plane of Fire suffer fire damage if not protected...) Portals still exist in the new game, and there is at least one spell that lets you shift Planes, so that's not an issue. The main difficulty is restoring the old Alignment traits and the missing Planar races (i.e. Guardinals, etc...) But monster creation is easier in the new edition, so hopefully not too much work there. Faction abilities are also a problem, but maybe they could be swapped in in place of other abilities. When 3E first came out, people from this site created stats for what were then "missing" races (but later WOTC books provided official write-up for some of them). Why couldn't we do that again?
Thu, 2008-06-12 16:41
#14
4e, will anyone use it?
We could, and I imagine we will.
For what it's worth, we seem to have a choice of two related systems that will be supported in the future. Paizo's Pathfinder will be closer to 3.5 and thus have less conversion required; furthermore, the company appears to be making an effort to preserve style and fluff relating to Planescape as it has historically existed. On both counts, updating of old material should be very easy. Indeed, they've basically said "hey, switch some labels and you're probably good."
4e material will doubtless be the system of choice for many new players as a default, and material concerning several of the setting personalities, such as major powers, will come out in that system. If we want to take advantage of such material and be accesible to new gamers using 4e, we would need 4e versions of Planescape material. The cosmological fit would be so much harder as to essentially require reconstruction, however, so conversions of official 4e material might be of limited value.
From what I've been hearing, my preference would be, if we are to update, to update along the Pathfinder route, throwing our lot in with Paizo. If we made that the "core" material, an accessory document might then include conversion from 4e. It would be something like:
"Hi! Welcome to the Planescape setting, one of the best settings ever for D&D! Mostly developed during the years of A&D 2nd Edition, we now maintain this vast cosmology and history in the mechanics of Paizo's Pathfinder. If this all looks interesting to you but you're not sure how you might be able to use it because your character or group is currently using the 4th Edition standard mechanics, this document will give you some guidelines on conversions -- your characters to Pathfinder mechanics, or our material to 4e standards. Information transfer won't be perfect between versions, but the basic concepts of any writeup should survive. The heart of Planescape has always been its colorful characters and magnificent vistas, so hopefully this conversion guide will help spur your game into the planes!"
Thu, 2008-06-12 19:43
#15
4e, will anyone use it?
We will be making a conversion (and likely one for Pathfinder as well come to think of it).
I've been using this week to sit down with a copy of the rules and figure out a) what we need to convert first, and b) what the guidelines should be for that effort.
Thu, 2008-06-12 20:03
#16
4e, will anyone use it?
I'm not touching 4E. It'll only encourage them. ¬_¬
Thu, 2008-06-12 20:30
#17
4e, will anyone use it?
I'm not touching 4E. It'll only encourage them. ¬_¬
Wanna help with Pathfinder conversions then?
Mon, 2008-07-14 23:37
#18
I may be able to. I'm
I may be able to. I'm digging through the alphas and like good bit, loathe a good bit. Certainly will be buying it long before I touch 4e. I'm 42 and I've been playing since '79, I am not spending that much on books again. I have several grand worth of gear, Pathfinder will hopefully be close enough to work well.
What concerns me is the future status of official sites like ours. With WOTC shutting down or condensing their other worlds boards, as well as the rumor of a new planescape book in 4e's future I find myself wondering if the rug might not get yanked out from under us...
Just my two greens...
Thu, 2008-06-12 22:44
#19
4e, will anyone use it?
At least the bulk part of the PSCS - the flavor and style - won't require any rewriting no matter the system.
The hardest part about converting to 4E will be deciding how to convert feats. Making them class/paragon powers is the most obvious conversion, though you then run into the issue of restricting powers to classes or making PCs choose between class abilities and faction abilities (not that this argument didn't rage in the designs for the 3E conversion...)
Fri, 2008-06-13 00:06
#20
4e, will anyone use it?
I think it would be great if we make conversions for both 4E and Pathfinder.
I only have books for the former and would be eager to help out, but there's also a free alpha version available for the latter, right? Perhaps if I get some time to sit down with those rules, I’ll do both as time allows.
Fri, 2008-06-13 05:35
#21
4e, will anyone use it?
I think we should wait a little bit before we start throwing out conversions for 4e. There's still the nasty rumor that they will put out a Planescape setting (at least in name) for the 4e. manual of the planes book will also probably include many new monsters and rule to use in 4e too. wait a few more months, will you?
As for pathfinder, I'm not familiar with it, but if its closer to 3e rules, than why not start with it while we are waiting for the manual of the planes?
Fri, 2008-06-13 07:05
#22
4e, will anyone use it?
Meh. Had a look at it, didn't convince me. Nice combat mechanics. Butchered Fluff (doesn't really hurt me, I mean, I can change that). Would need some conversions and I'm too lazy to do them. I had enough work converting planar rules to 3.5.
Fri, 2008-06-13 09:38
#23
4e, will anyone use it?
My friends and I have been playing PS for long time and we did conversion from second ed to 3rd was one long tedious and traumatic experiance (even with the conversion guide WotC provided).
I cannot speak for my friends, but I just dont have the will to do that process all ower again.
As of promised new 4ed Planescape setting, well all I can say, I do belive in miracles, and maybe WotC will suprise us all. After all "Hordes of Abyss" and "Tyrants of Nine Hells" were pretty decent books with fair planar material.
Fri, 2008-06-13 13:51
#24
Dear Clueless
So, there will be at least some 4E material here? I know lots of people hate it (for the moment anyway... give them time!), but maybe you could put it in a separate 4E section so those who like it can go there and those who hate it can avoid it. Same with Pathfinder. I don't own Pathfinder (is it out yet?), but I'm certainly willing to take a look since everybody says it's great... plus it would give me another rules system to draw ideas from. I hear it's like 3.5E; did they get the licence from WOTC?
Fri, 2008-06-13 15:20
#25
4e, will anyone use it?
As much as I want to hate the game, its actually not as bad as everyone thinks. I am lucky/unlucky enough to have living memory of the switch from AD&D (In fact, original 1E D&D) to 3E D&D. Everyone kicked off and threw insults backwards and forwards.
3E and 3.5E were a good set of rules. They simplified the rules base (THAC0 used to haunt my dreams when I was little) and attracted a lot of people who were scared off by the sometimes complicated rules in AD&D.
Dont get me wrong, AD&D will always have a special place in my heart. I personally would hate to play Baldurs Gate or Torment with 3E rules. But 4E is a decent, but different game. I do not love it, but I did not love 3E when I bought those first books all those years ago.
Picked up the 4E PHB in Borders (bookshop) and flicked through spitting as I went that they removed Alignments, messed with the Gods and removed some much beloved classes but its a book targetted at the WoW generation. Not entirely unworkable. Personally I am keeping alignment and playing on as if the Great Wheel is still in existence.
As a final note though, I am royally p***ed off that there are no Metallic Dragons in the 4E MM. But I also know that Draconomicon is on the way to right this wrong. Ah Wizards...thanks to you we can no longer play a 3 book game Xaos bless your money-making greed.
Anyway, im prepared for the fire that will no doubt come my way. But at the end of the day, lets not hate something which has been out less than a fortnight (in UK anyway :-s)
Fri, 2008-06-13 16:31
#26
4e, will anyone use it?
Ah! Heretic! BURN IN THE EMPERORS HOLY FIRE!
No, honestly. I understand why people might like the new system. It just lacks a lot of things I like.
Most of all, my two favourite characters where a halfling Half-fey rogue and an enchanter wizard who has a pacifist. Both of which were kinda pacifists. While the rogue was still able to fight quite well, he prefered evading enemies, and, whenever possible, not to hurt or kill them. My wizard was the opposite: he was lawful evil and thought that killing was a waste of resources, and that it meant you were unable to find a way around it. Now, with the new edition, it seems I can no longer play a wizard without combat spells, based on illusions and enchantments only. And that saddens me. Our last game session lasted eight hours and had one "combat" which consisted of a single bowshot at another player. On the other hand, disguise self was used at least four times, two times without prior planning, on the run, as was ghost sound, arcane lock and, once, mage hand.
Actually, we all agree that the combat part is not the part of DnD that interests us. 4E might deliver great and cinematic combat, and I'm happy for all those who like that kind of thing. But my players start building dice towers and scribbling on their sheets when there's a combat longer than one round.
So, I won't be playing this edition.
Fri, 2008-06-13 17:21
#27
4e, will anyone use it?
Agreed Eldan,
It annoys me that they have reworked the Cleric into a weak fighter with a kind of passive ability to heal slight wounds and obliterated the Wizard. I suppose there are rituals for the dark, brooding, tower-bound mage. But still, I loved my Necromancer who hated the sight of blood and was impossibly clean.
I think this edition has the potential to remove a lot of the One-Character powerhouse that some people liked. I mean a level 20 Evil Cleric could potentially be at the head of an immense undead army. I might be wrong, but from what I read they are pretty much pushing you down the good path (we'll leave tiefers out of the arguement...oh and for anyone who doesnt know, apparently the Aasimar dont exist!)
EDIT: I have found disguise self and mirror image! Woo Hoo! Oh wait, they are only available at level 10...bloody hell, displacement is up there at level 16...Mass Fly has comical applications too
Sat, 2008-06-14 01:22
#28
4e, will anyone use it?
Despite the designers desire to write off existing fans, and drive a nail in the coffin of all previous versions of the game, management will eventually bow to player base and roll out guides and supplements that includes pre-existing material.
Wizards couldn't even kill off Greyhawk, what makes you think they can shut the City of Doors.
While art may live for the moment...
Jink never dies.
Sat, 2008-06-14 04:57
#29
4e, will anyone use it?
for 4e mechanics system I would need to change at least 75 % of it to be good
I'm not saying it's impossible, the system had a tiny bit of potential
Sat, 2008-06-14 06:18
#30
4e, will anyone use it?
Wizards couldn't even kill off Greyhawk, what makes you think they can shut the City of Doors.
By what standard, exactly, is Greyhawk still alive? I've already played several sessions of Fourth Edition, and I can tell you right now that, while the game system itself is much funner than any other addition I've played, the boring and soulless setting described in the Core books has no more than a cursory resemblance to Greyhawk.
As far as a new version of Planescape is concerned, if such a thing is still possible, it won't be for a while. Apparently, Wizards is releasing there new content in yearly "blocks" of one setting with accompanying rulebooks. This year their setting will be Forgotten Realms (with more than enough changes to piss off the fan boys), next year it will be Eberron, and then after that who knows? 2010 could potentially mark the return of Planescape (or Greyhawk, for that matter, although the two could easily tied together), but PS will have been dead for ten years at that point (scary, I know), so they'd probably be very loose with it. It would likely feature their redefined (and greatly diminished) Outer Planes and may wind up nothing like the PS we know and love.
Of course that's all assuming they pick a old setting to bring back and don't just make a new one. They still have the runner-up settings from the contest a few years back (and have barred the winners from disclosing their settings), so any of those could easily make an appearance. And then there's the possibility they'll bring back Dark Sun, or Dragonlance, which they could easily do. Spelljammer, on the other hand will almost certainly never see the light of day again.
Sat, 2008-06-14 22:48
#31
4e, will anyone use it?
Clueless, as I've said before, I would support a 4th Edition conversion, plan to eventually convert my current Planescape campaign assuming all goes well, and would love to help design some mechanics. I felt a little intimidated trying to do game design for 3rd Edition due to the intricacy of the whole operation, but I feel inspired by 4th.
I'm still undecided about the fluff changes. I think the new cosmology has more potential than some people believe, and I think that over time it'll grow on you. Especially once they release the Manual of the Planes, which will undoubtedly restore your favorite locations to life, albeit with some geographical adjustments (Astral domains, mostly). I'd personally like to see Planescape use a gentle hybrid of the two, where the Outlands takes the place of the mortal world, becomes slightly more Prime-like, and then is surrounded by the 4th Edition planes.
You also might be interested to see what 4th Edition can do for planar adventurers here.
Sun, 2008-06-15 00:43
#32
4e, will anyone use it?
I lost faith in 3.5 a couple of years ago, as did most of my gaming group, and we moved on to different systems. With 4e, alot of my group have gone back to dnd (and even I'm playing in a game), but for me, its not special, at all. It is a combat skrimish game, which now puts even more focus on battlemap tactics etc....aka boredom.....
i was planning on running a new planescape campaign come autmun with 4e, but my current urban planescape campaign is going really well using grups so I may just use grups for future planescape games
Kal
Sun, 2008-06-15 09:01
#33
4e, will anyone use it?
...using GURPS for a Planescape game? I am intrigued. Have you logs up anywhere? How are you handling the alignment issue? Is it at all connected to the Infinite Worlds cosmology?
Sun, 2008-06-15 15:05
#34
4e, will anyone use it?
By what standard, exactly, is Greyhawk still alive?
I've played, the boring and soulless setting described in the Core books has no more than a cursory resemblance to Greyhawk.
Gah! The core books setting involves/resembles/is Greyhawk! Will some one please burn down that piking blex farm, and rid me of it once and for all.
I thought we were rid of that nightmare when they rolled out Forgotten Realms, but they brought it back before the ink was even dry on Second Edition. Seems like I can't flip through a modules, magazine, supplement or setting without seeing some reference to that acursed setting.
That said, I surprised that they've already announced release dates for Forgotten Realms or Eberron, from everything I had heard from the original design team, far as they were concerned, all the earlier settings could rot in hells. But maybe I heard wrong.
Either way, usually they wait until the jink starts to run dry before they start releasing older settings.
But with that in mind, I guess we will start seeing Sigil pop up in every book, module or article that even mentions the planes, no matter how devoid of life they are now.
Sun, 2008-06-15 15:06
#35
4e, will anyone use it?
I enjoy the world of Greyhawk much, much more than the world of Krynn. Just pointing that out.
Sun, 2008-06-15 15:12
#36
4e, will anyone use it?
Also, WotC sold Krynn to some 3rd party developer (Thankfully. If I see a widely published Dragonlance campaign setting I'm going to hide in the corner of my room. Forever.)
Sun, 2008-06-15 17:18
#37
4e, will anyone use it?
I actually like Greyhawk more than Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. You don't see books about Mordenkainen's many dalliances with Wee Jas, now do you?
Wanna help with Pathfinder conversions then?
Just read Pathfinder for the first time the other day. It's the most beautiful thing ever. I'm officially boycotting Wizards products in favor of Paizo now.
Yes, I'd love to help with conversions. :mrgreen:
Sun, 2008-06-15 23:07
#38
4e, will anyone use it?
...using GURPS for a Planescape game? I am intrigued. Have you logs up anywhere? How are you handling the alignment issue? Is it at all connected to the Infinite Worlds cosmology?
I too am curious about GURPS. What is this Infinite Worlds thingie?
-sci
Sun, 2008-06-15 23:45
#39
4e, will anyone use it?
I too am curious about GURPS. What is this Infinite Worlds thingie?
The GURPS meta-setting. The fluff is scientific rather than mystical -- it runs on the many-worlds quantum theory, with timelines splitting off as quantum events resolve one way or the other, whether they be historical (the Black Plague never happened, the Nazis won World War II, etc.) or physical (magic exists, gunpowder doesn't combust, whatnot). Worlds, a.k.a. timelines, are arranged in Quantum levels, which can be transited by sci-fi gadgetry in limited jumps. The usual game is set on historical variants of Earth such as Britannia-6 or Reich-5, though there is an Yrth setting populated by a Banestorm that crawls the planes and hurls unsuspecting species onto the planet to make their way. Worlds such as elemental planes and afterlives are matters of deep mysticism, a closely held secret of the interworld Cabal; magical planar travel is exceedingly difficult in GURPS.
<_< >_>
Not to toot my own horn but I wrote up a crossplanar fantasy setting for GURPS called "Tomos, the Divided Land"; it's behind a subscription wall here but the basic idea is "teleportation's a helluva lot easier than plane shifting, let's sniff out elemental vortices from Plane A to elemental planes, teleport to the nearest vortex to Plane B, and walk from there." Okay, self-promotion done! :^)
The reason I particularly asked about alignment is that GURPS uses trait-based personalities (Honest Face, Code of Honor, Bloodlust, etc.) rather than good/evil/lawful/chaotic, so I was wondering how Kal's game organized the Outer Planes and the like.
Mon, 2008-06-16 03:56
#40
4e, will anyone use it?
Currently, the players havent even left Sigil in Urban Planescape, however, I dont think you need hard and fast alignment rules to play planescape, all but one of my players played in my previous 3.5 planescape and they're alignments never really came up, yeah going to outer planes caused some of them to get headaches, feel bad etc, but they we're roleplaying that, I never had to impose penalties on them to get the feel of planescape in the group
And the cosmology, I use grups for rules, nothing else, i have no intention of using infinite rules
The campaign log is up on the boards tho
Kal
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:59
#41
4e, will anyone use it?
Hey, did anyone read the new GSL? This particular paragraph seems relevant for Planescape.
7. Quality and Content Standards. The nature and quality of all Licensed Products will conform to the quality standards set by Wizards, as may be provided from time to time. At a minimum, the Licensed Products will conform to community standards of decency and appropriateness as determined by Wizards in its discretion. Without limiting the foregoing, no Licensed Products will depict in any text, graphical or other manner:
(a) excessively graphic violence or gore;
(b) sexual situations, sexual abuse, pornography, gratuitous nudity of human or humanoid forms, genitalia, or sexual activity; or
(c) existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups or practices, political preferences, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities, as a group inferior to any other group or in a way that promotes disrespect for those groups or practices, or that endorses those groups or practices over another.
Without limiting the foregoing, Licensed Products will not contain any content that is unlawful, defamatory, harassing, threatening, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable or that would infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party or constitute, encourage, or provide instructions for a criminal offense.
Wed, 2008-06-18 14:07
#42
4e, will anyone use it?
Hey, did anyone read the new GSL? This particular paragraph seems relevant for Planescape.
There goes 4E Book of Erotic Fantasy. :roll:
Wed, 2008-06-18 14:12
#43
4e, will anyone use it?
Book of Vile Darkness.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:02
#44
4e, will anyone use it?
A good deal of interesting bits from Planescape.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:25
#45
4e, will anyone use it?
Also, War of the Spider Queen series of novels.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:41
#46
"excessive violence and gore"
Well, they've already got devils, demons and Orcus in the first Monster Manual, so I'd take that line about "excessive violence and gore" with a grain of salt. And a page in either the Player's Handbook or DMG has a character bashing in the head of a monster and showing some splatter! Also, doesn't this apply to outside developers, not in-house projects? And I had no use for the Book of Erotic Fantasy in my game anyway, although I admit drooling over the picture of the naked nymph! The 3.5E Ebberon books mentioned prostitution and even had prices for a visit to a brothel... wonder if THAT will appear in the 4E books??? 
Wed, 2008-09-24 08:48
#47
I'm also breaking out of
I'm also breaking out of lurking just to point out that the restriction on blood/sex only applies to 3rd party publishers, using the current* GSL, not to WotC themselves. They can put as many violence and gore as they want in their books, and can even make a 4E Book of erotic fantasy if they think this is a good idea (which I doubt).
* they announced their intention to make some changes to it, but who knows how much time this will take.
Wed, 2008-06-18 16:02
#48
4e, will anyone use it?
where the Outlands takes the place of the mortal world, becomes slightly more Prime-like, and then is surrounded by the 4th Edition planes.
The beauty of the Outer Planes (or Astral Dominions) is in their surreal, impossible, paradoxical nature. They all need to be much, much less Prime-like. If you want a Prime-like setting, you can use the Prime.
Wed, 2008-06-18 19:14
#49
4e, will anyone use it?
For me there is no 4e. And after producing the GSL, I hope third party publishers don't support their system, sales tank after the initial surge and WoTC folds. Once D&D is safely in the land of Out-Of-Print Games it won't be worth the effort of Hasbro to spend the effort messing with fans. Assuming it doesn't get sold off.
Thu, 2008-06-19 02:06
#50
4e, will anyone use it?
It's seems iconic enough that it'll likely get sold off. Look at Fallout. It was dead for about a decade and then Bethesda suddenly bought it and are making an FPS sequel... Then again, I don't think anyone knows why they felt the need to buy the license to a dead series and then make a game with it that most of the people who actually remember the previous games won't like...
Why wouldn't third party publishers support 4E though? Sure they'll compromise their artistic vision, but they'll make allot of money.
Thu, 2008-06-19 02:08
#51
4e, will anyone use it?
Why wouldn't third party publishers support 4E though?
Because they can't create 4E products with graphic violence and sex in them.
Not only will I not play or GM 4e I won't even buy any more products from WoTC. The last product I bought from them was the Grand History of FR, I'm sticking with what I've already got and probably adding things pulled from Pathfinder. They're walking down some of the same mechanical alleys my own Homebrew already has, and while WoTC material has seemingly gotten steadily worse in content and physical quality I've never had one complaint against Paizo on either.