have you so much as ever read the actual Planescape boxed set? I mean if not I have to take your views of it with a large grain of salt and wonder if it's possible that may be why you feel the way you do about it
I respect the fact that you've actually read the material as opposed to commenting on it from secondary sources like modules or sourcebooks
My knowledge of Planescape is based on a range of sourcebooks (Planewalker's Handbook by Monte Cook is the main one I can think of; I have seen it praised more than once by PS fans on these boards) and modules (Dead Gods is one, the other I can think of is Tales of the Infinite Staircase - both Monte Cook, I think). This is the first I've heard these described as "secondary sources" - Dead Gods is frequently touted as
the great Planescape modue, they all ship with the Planescape logo on the cover, and Monte Cook was, I thought, one of the pre-eminent Planescape authors.
The content of Planescape is also ascertainable in other ways eg read the 3E MotP, or an adventure like Bastion of Broken Souls or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and subtract the 1st ed AD&D MotP and most of the remainder is Planescape - Sigil most obviously, but other elements too like factions, Lower Planer backstory, etc.
Perhaps all this material that shipped under the Planescape banner was actually contradictory in tone and content to the boxed set, but I've never seen anyone assert that.
I honestly thought as a kid it was one of the most imaginative settings TSR had produced
That may well be so. My dislike of Planescape isn't based upon a view of its literary merits.
I have two somewhat petty reasons for disliking it, and one serious reason.
The petty reasons are (i) the cant, which for someone who is familiar with vernacular English as spoken in England and some Commonwealth countries (eg Australia) is just silly - for me "berk" isn't evocative of some Planar otherworld, but rather a term of mild abuse (similar to "idiot" or "d*ckhead") that I used to use as a child; and (ii) the description of the factions as "philosophers with clubs" - I am a philosopher in real life, and am fairly familiar with most European language and some non-European philosophical traditions, and don't find the factions to be very philosophically sophisticated.
My serious reason for disliking Planescape is the one I posted upthread (I think in the post you replied to): its appeal seems to me primarily be to those who want the experience of play to be revelations of the cleverness or quirkiness of Planescape. To me, it's emphasis seems to be overwhelmingly on exploration as the goal of play - exploring the alignment system, enjoying the urban squalor of Sigil, being amusd by wacky portal keys, etc.
That is not what I am looking for in a RPG.
( [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], on these boards, has set out ideas for play in Planescape that don't fall foul of my serious objection. I'm sure if Quickleaf was GMing a Planescape game I'd enjoy it. Unfortunately Quickleaf is half-way across the Pacific Ocean from me. And I have no independent motivation to turn Planescape to my purposes when there is other D&D material much more readily available that doesn't need turning.)
