| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 04 Jul 2004 : 01:15:15
Well I once jokingly told Sage not get overexcited about this book and its Planescape possibilities, in light of recent WotC books, but I'm finding myself quite excited by it now.
This interview indicates that it will touch upon several Planescape aspects - Sigil and the Factions (with factions detailed by the lovely, and trustworthy, Gwendoleyn Kestrel) - as well as presenting several planar adventures. Sounds good to me. *moves PH:AGPttP up in to-buy list* |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 18:31:47
EN World has a new review up for this tome. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 10 Aug 2004 : 04:45:36
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Odd, the chat transcript there is missing the 'enough Planescape questions already' comment.
No suprise there. WOTC is well known, at least to this scribe, for doing quite a bit of editing with chat transcripts. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 10 Aug 2004 : 04:35:26
Odd, the chat transcript there is missing the 'enough Planescape questions already' comment. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 09 Aug 2004 : 14:22:49
There is a transcript up now for the chat with the Planar Handbook designers. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 14:38:13
Give me a few more days to actually finish reading the tome. It would be unfair to pass judgement when not all of the material that is presented has been solidly read through.
|
| The Wanderer |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 13:50:35
So, Sage... Being the hardcore PS player that you are, what was your opinion on this Particular tome? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 08:04:06
I'm sure the Golden Lords have seized upon the power vacuum that was created shortly after the Lady's proclamation. I suppose they've even started supporting (whether in secret or not) certain small time guilds thereby thrusting them to the front of the political stage in the City of Doors. They'd have too. They have to have some means of competing with those factions that reconstituted after the War.
It makes for some perilous times ahead...
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:53:07
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
So, the alignment of Sigil as LN was taken in perspective of the post-Faction War environment. I wonder, would it have been different before the war...?
Eh, probably not. If anything it would have been more firmly LN with the presence of the Fraternity of Order, Harmonium, and Mercykillers at the height of their power and influence. As it is, the new regime, so to speak, probably has less a firm grasp on power though they have more popular support from the common people of the city. How much of a back seat they'll take to the Golden Lords and various persons like Zadara the titan, Estevan and the Planar Trade Consortium, and my namesake is a good question. I'd like to think that the council will grow a spine :) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:46:36
So, the alignment of Sigil as LN was taken in perspective of the post-Faction War environment. I wonder, would it have been different before the war...?
quote:
While I don't agree with the "Lady of Pain: LN, etc" part personally, I can rationalize it. It probably would have been best to give no alignment, or unknown alignment, but I'm not the writer. (Plus in the absence of having published anything professionally myself, outside of being cited in an EPA study, I can't say much now can I).
Well, as I've said before, I don't particularly agree with this either. But then, we are in an advantageous position of having access to 2e PS material. So, we're free to ignore this assignment of LN to the LoP, so long as WotC don't devise a way to make the alignment of the LoP necessary in some way. The next thing you know, they'll be assigning her domains...
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:31:34
However I will say that despite high standards I'm pleased as punch with the treatment that Sigil received. While the city itself was described as LN in alignment, which in and of itself, has provoked debate on various boards, we realized something that makes it fit. Re-reading the DMG material on city alignment, the LN doesn't apply to the populace itself, but rather to the city governments approach to the populace. In that light the LN alignment works dead on and I can't find fault with it.
While I don't agree with the "Lady of Pain: LN, etc" part personally, I can rationalize it. It probably would have been best to give no alignment, or unknown alignment, but I'm not the writer. (Plus in the absence of having published anything professionally myself, outside of being cited in an EPA study, I can't say much now can I). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:24:59
Ah. I knew the "modron" fact would cause some contention, so I was rather expecting some debate over that material (or lack thereof).
You're right about the "High Standards and Big shoes to fill" aspect of the discussion though. I'd thought about this several times to myself when reading through the tome. It just seems a little strange that other PS devotees weren't expecting this. As you say, MotP already started the break with traditional PS material. I was already of the thought that the PlHB would be no different, so I found it particularly confusing when other PS fans couldn't comprehend that fact.
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:17:58
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Any idea why the posters over at EN World became so distressed?
Several reasons:
1) Modrons and Continuity: Most of the hardcore PS folks adored them. So much so, that when the MotP minimized them to the extent it did and rewrote the history of the Arcadian Formians, to make the formerly LG ants the dominant race of Mechanus, that WotC hastily put out the web enhancement to the MotP to detail the Modrons and give them stats.
I can't vouch for this, but supposedly WotC didn't anticipate the visceral reaction that they got by minimizing the Modrons in 3e. Again, while I can't vouch for this I've heard that Jeff Grubb laughed at the other design team folks who had been behind the idea to remove the Modrons by and large in the first place.
Lots of the folks are upset with the PlHB because of no mention of the Modrons at all, plus Andy Collins comments about that. "Modrons, modrons, modrons..." et al. That seriously cheesed some folks off in the way that it seemed to be a blatant disregard for the core fanbase plus the material that has previously been published, to say nothing about continuity.
2) High Standards and Big shoes to fill: Let's face it, when you're comparing a new book to the older Planescape material the bar is set high. I was happy with the material on Sigil when I saw it months before the book came out. However some people felt that the way the question of alignment for the Lady of Pain was handled in the chat was, again, showing a sort of callous disregard for Planescape. Fair or not, it was Mr. Collins statements again that seem to have done to most damage, at least from the folks I've heard from. Might just be sample bias there.
I don't expect to see WotC remake Planescape, I'm just happy to see the nods to it that it got in the PlHB. Kestrel and Cordell did a fine job, and while there's points that I can nitpick in the book they're only nitpicks from me and I'd only complain because I'd be comparing it to the 2e material. It seems it was mostly the implied tone of some of the comments made during the chat that really, REALLY, rubbed some folks the wrong way. (The same thing happened in the chat for the BoED w/ regards to the replacement of the Guardinal Lords).
That said, I've had the book on preorder since I read the Sigil material originally and I appreciate Gwen Kestrel mentioning Planewalker in the chat; was very kind of her. It's not Planescape, but it's probably the closest that we'll get with the current design team, for better or for worse. I'll still be playing old school Planescape w/ 3e rules and I'll still have Modrons ruling Mechanus despite if nebulous groups of 'everyone' thinks that they're "silly". |
| Arivia |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:03:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Thanks for the link to the review of the PlHB. I think that's an even trade for my posting the PlHB chat log on Enworld ;)
And umm... I had nothing to do with any forthcoming incidents of angry villagers with torchs, pitchforks, and windmills in combination with any game designers once that chat log got posted...
You're right. I was expecting this type of reaction either.
Any idea why the posters over at EN World became so distressed?
What happened, anyway? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 06:47:02
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Thanks for the link to the review of the PlHB. I think that's an even trade for my posting the PlHB chat log on Enworld ;)
And umm... I had nothing to do with any forthcoming incidents of angry villagers with torchs, pitchforks, and windmills in combination with any game designers once that chat log got posted...
You're right. I wasn't expecting this type of reaction either.
Any idea why the posters over at EN World became so distressed?
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 22 Jul 2004 : 22:48:50
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
And umm... I had nothing to do with any forthcoming incidents of angry villagers with torchs, pitchforks, and windmills in combination with any game designers once that chat log got posted...
What got the commoners all worked up? |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 22 Jul 2004 : 22:32:41
Thanks for the link to the review of the PlHB. I think that's an even trade for my posting the PlHB chat log on Enworld ;)
And umm... I had nothing to do with any forthcoming incidents of angry villagers with torchs, pitchforks, and windmills in combination with any game designers once that chat log got posted... |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 22 Jul 2004 : 16:46:38
ENWorld provided a link to a new review for this tome. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 17:25:09
For those scribes with an interest, ENWorld now has a thread with a log for the above mentioned chat. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 16:20:28
Gaming Report had the following up this morning to remind all Planar Handbook fans about tonight's chat:
quote:
WizO_Dabus Reports: Puzzled by the planes? Drop by our Q&A chat with the authors of the new Planar Handbook, Bruce Cordell and Gwendolyn Kestrel. The Planar Handbook provides everything you need to create and play characters prepared for the odyssey of planar travel.
When: Tuesday, July 20, 4 p.m. PT (7 p.m. ET)
Where: www.wizards.com/chat in the "Wizards Presents . . ." chat room
Be sure to register your screen name far enough advance to get back the confirmation.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 11:15:12
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Thelonius Andrass
This city is the great Sigil, City of Doors?
I expected something more.... uhmmm... impressive? 
If you want something in more detail, we've got around 70 pages worth over on Planewalker (both new material and compilation of older material in one source).
I'm sure I've mentioned that fact several times here at Candlekeep.
Anyway, Thelonius... the link to the site which Shemmy refers to in her post, is in my signature.
Enjoy  .
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 11:03:33
quote:
Originally posted by Thelonius Andrass
This city is the great Sigil, City of Doors?
I expected something more.... uhmmm... impressive?
If you want something in more detail, we've got around 70 pages worth over on Planewalker (both new material and compilation of older material in one source). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 09:10:53
That's correct.
I didn't mind the write-up actually. Granted it was still small (smaller than I'd like at least), but it's nice to have some official 3e source material on the City of Doors nonetheless...
|
| Thelonius |
Posted - 16 Jul 2004 : 18:05:56
This city is the great Sigil, City of Doors?
I expected something more.... uhmmm... impressive? |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Jul 2004 : 17:56:00
A note to all Planar fans. I found the following over at WOTC's site:
quote:
Tue, Jul 20, 4 pm PT/7 pm ET
Planar Handbook Chat
With authors Bruce R. Cordell and Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel
Puzzled by the Planes? Drop by this Q&A chat with the authors of the new Planar Handbook that provides everything you need to create and play characters prepared for the odyssey of planar travel.
I don't recall any previous mention of the chat so I just wanted to drop a note to let everyone here know about it.
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 06:37:18
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I can understand the logic of three of those locales, but the Crumbling Citadel on the Plane of Fire just sounds so innapropriate. I hope there's some reasonable justification for why this is so...
That's the one they more or less got right...
Well the crumbling citadel should be on the plane of fire if they had stuck to the element that each corresponded to (the negative touched version of it anyways). Afterall, it was originally on the quasiplane of Ash, negative touched fire.
Going with that:
Exhalus - originally vacuum (neg. air). Instead placed in Neg Energy
Sealt - originally salt (neg. water). Instead placed in earth ?!
Alluvius - originally Dust (neg. earth) Instead placed in air ?! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 10:19:21
I can understand the logic of three of those locales, but the Crumbling Citadel on the Plane of Fire just sounds so innapropriate. I hope there's some reasonable justification for why this is so...
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 18:33:56
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
So, if the Sinker's citadels are no longer on the Dust, Ash, Vacuum, and Salt quasi-planes, where on the Inner Planes were they placed?
Citadel Alluvius = Plane of Air (in a earthy and dusty part of the plane)
Crumbling Citadel = Plane of Fire
Citadel Sealt = Plane of Earth (in a crystal salt part of the plane)
Citadel Exhalus = Negative Energy |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 14:00:49
So, if the Sinker's citadels are no longer on the Dust, Ash, Vacuum, and Salt quasi-planes, where on the Inner Planes were they placed?
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 08:29:20
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Ah. I'm glad to see that the details (and hopefully the consequences) of the Faction War have not been left out. Does this mean though, that those Factions exiled from Sigil will not be receiving their own space in the tome?
No, the Doomguard get a pretty nice writeup in the book despite being more or less in self imposed exile to the inner planes. The 4 Doomguard citadels in the negative touched quasielemental planes; though since WotC officially did away withthem in 3e, they changed the 4 citadels to other spots on the inner planes. (they did a decent job, but got 2 of the 4 in the wrong corresponding element. Meh. I'm nitpicking.)
The writeup is really nice however, I like it. Each of the factions covered get a section of 'lore' involving their beliefs, legends and plothooks.
Heh, I'll be getting my copy of the book at the same time as Serpent Kingdoms. Not sure which I'll absorb first. ;) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 04:18:11
Ah. I'm glad to see that the details (and hopefully the consequences) of the Faction War have not been left out. Does this mean though, that those Factions exiled from Sigil will not be receiving their own space in the tome?
|
