Quote from: Phillip;446193Try not reading yourself between the lines in an intentionally absurd way.

Having actually read the discussion, whereas you once again went off in the long-winded, basically masturbatory fashion that is, apparently, your modus operandi without having actually read what was said, I win, right?

Especially given that many folks, myself included, went beyond a cursory examination of Lords of Creations and concluded it wasn't some missed gem. Being superficial isn't actually the only possible manner in which someone could come to a conclusion that doesn't match yours...

Conversing with you reminds me of conversing with my grandfather, who is also quite old and stuck in the his ways.

Maybe we should put you in a corner, too...

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;446179I mean Nyagga? Really?

I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used.

Quote from: Sigmund;446179I mean Nyagga? Really?

I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used...

Quote from: Phillip;446197Hmm. Maybe in...

Yeah, that's it. Way to be dismissive rather than address the point. By this I take it that you're saying other games are absolutely perfect, needing no further development and having no flaws at all. There really isn't 4 editions of the worlds least underrated FRPG, right? If you can't address the point then just admit it instead of puking out petulant BS like this. OD&D was even less developed than DQ and certainly isn't underrated I would say, so try again. DQ is underrated precisely because folks decided it "sucked" without even giving it a shot. Did you ever actually play it yourself even?

Tell ya what, rather than come in here and start shitting on posts folks (like me) made 2 fucking years ago about their opinions on under-rated games, perhaps you might be better served asking why they arrived at that opinion. Coming in here like you know fucking better than all the rest of us and that your pronouncements of what "underrated" should mean and what games do and don't qualify is just a quick way to be dismissed as an arrogant joke.

Quote from: Seanchai;446203Especially given that many folks, myself included, went beyond a cursory examination of Lords of Creations and concluded it wasn't some missed gem. Being superficial isn't actually the only possible manner in which someone could come to a conclusion that doesn't match yours...

You REALLY ARE that fucking stupid?

You REALLY can't add up (1) I never said that plus (2) I never said that, and get the sum of (3) I never said that?

Bullshit. You aren't that much of an idiot. You're just that much of an asshole.

Quote from: Phillip;446297You're just that much of an asshole.

Irony, thy milk is sweet.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;446273By this I take it that you're saying other games are absolutely perfect, needing no further development and having no flaws at all.

No. I'm pointing out that you made the same observation I did. How then is it "under rating"?

QuoteDQ is underrated precisely because folks decided it "sucked" without even giving it a shot.

That is not the claim you made. Indeed, what you wrote was just the opposite -- that folks actually gave the game a shot and then sometimes did not get into it. That happens to be what I have seen.

QuoteDid you ever actually play it yourself even?

Yes, and as I mentioned, I like it.

Quoteperhaps you might be better served asking why they arrived at that opinion.

That is precisely what I have asked. Why don't you answer the question, instead of attacking me for asking it?

What does 'underrating' mean to you? It appears to mean observing that many people find not their cup of tea a game that you (and, coincidentally, I) happen to hold in high regard.

That's not what 'underrating' sensibly means to me. 'Underrating' to me means rating something -- complexity, realism, flexibility, speed of play, balance, variety of character types or magic or monsters, or what have you -- as less than what it really is.

That could mean rating something as horrible when it is simply below average, or rating something as merely very good when it is excellent.

Having a different hierarchy of values in the first place is something else. Someone who simply prefers X to Y can acknowledge something as the very pinnacle of Y-dom yet not want to have it replace his merely adequate X.

Quote from: The_Shadow;446257I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used...

Meh, not the biggest fan of Lovecraft either. I could see Nyagga as a monster though I suppose.

Quote from: Phillip;446305No. I'm pointing out that you made the same observation I did. How then is it "under rating"?

Because the layout does not directly influence the game's playability.

QuoteThat is not the claim you made. Indeed, what you wrote was just the opposite -- that folks actually gave the game a shot and then sometimes did not get into it. That happens to be what I have seen.

I know very well what claim I made, and that was, again, that folks i have personally spoken with have either "heard from a guy" that the game wasn't fun, or looked through the book and didn't like how it looked and so weren't willing to play it. I won't be writing this out again.

QuoteYes, and as I mentioned, I like it.

Awesome.

QuoteThat is precisely what I have asked. Why don't you answer the question, instead of attacking me for asking it?[/quote

Because I have already answered it more than once.

QuoteWhat does 'underrating' mean to you? It appears to mean observing that many people find not their cup of tea a game that you (and, coincidentally, I) happen to hold in high regard.

That's not what 'underrating' sensibly means to me. 'Underrating' to me means rating something -- complexity, realism, flexibility, speed of play, balance, variety of character types or magic or monsters, or what have you -- as less than what it really is.

That could mean rating something as horrible when it is simply below average, or rating something as merely very good when it is excellent.

Having a different hierarchy of values in the first place is something else. Someone who simply prefers X to Y can acknowledge something as the very pinnacle of Y-dom yet not want to have it replace his merely adequate X.

Of course your interpretation of "underrating" is the sensible one, that means that anything I type in response that doesn't match what you typed must not be sensible. I'm going to do it anyway because luckily for me I don't feel the need to accept things just because you say so. Underrating something is what folks do when the form an unfavorable opinion on a thing without directly experiencing the thing for themselves. I knew players who would play TFT and Battletech, yet balked at DQ, so i knew it wasn't the tactical combat. I knew players who "heard from a friend" that DQ was "too complicated", or "too much like a wargame", or just plain "isn't enough like D&D". I'd call that underrating. If you did not encounter these sorts of complaints when trying to get folks to play DQ then rockin, but I did, hence my post of "Dragonquest" 2 years ago. Just like, IMO, Tekumel is overrated. It's still all opinion isn't it?

I like DQ a lot. I have introduced it, and Universe, to a number of people, some of whom placed a similar value on what the system delivered and others of whom did not.

There are plenty of counts on which someone could -- and many people did -- pass up Lords of Creation without even opening the box, counts that I would not call 'underrating'.

The game-mechanical system is nothing spectacular. There's no such striking innovation as in, e.g., Marvel Super Heroes or the Pacesetter games. I don't think that an assessment of merely 'average' or "more of the same old same old" would be underrating on that count. The general familiarity and simplicity are virtues to some of us, but marks against the game to others.

The game's chief claim to novelty was its sheer range of elements and influences, covering the gamut from Scythian mythology to slasher movies and beyond in every direction across history, literature and pop culture.

This was a few years before GURPS (perhaps even before that was Steve Jackson's joke name for a hypothetical game). This was back when the chief alternative for such far-flung adventures, apart from the similarly disparaged Timemaster, was Fringeworthy -- which had baroque mechanics in spades, but also did not take itself terribly seriously and didn't have much room left for describing weird creatures and gadgets and worlds and powers after detailing precisely which toe bone got hit with what kind of ammunition.

As I stated, the only 'underrating' I had in mind was the assumption that anything 'lacking' the Pretentious aspect or a certain level of arbitrary complication in the mechanics was a shit game because it was "just for kids".

A game that refers to the visionary poetry of William Blake is perhaps not especially aimed at children. Neither is the employment of elegant and fast-playing mechanics rather than cumbersome ones necessarily an impediment to richly engaging scenarios. A sense of humor about the fabulous is not intrinsically incompatible with seriously dramatic adventures.

A real requirement for baroque rules sets or pretentious blather for their own sakes would be among the responses counted as other than underrating. What's simply not there really isn't there, no 'under' about it!

It's the false equivalence of those with other things that brings in the issue of underrating, to my mind -- especially in light of where I saw some people go and what they ended up doing in terms of RPGs.

Quote from: SigmundI know very well what claim I made, and that was, again, that folks i have personally spoken with have either "heard from a guy" that the game wasn't fun...

Well, so long as what you in fact wrote and did not write is in fact still up there for anyone to see, I am content that any oversight on my part shall be plain. For any misreading on my part, I apologize.

QuoteUnderrating something is what folks do when the form an unfavorable opinion on a thing without directly experiencing the thing for themselves.

I suppose we must simply agree to disagree. Personally, I think that considering a crap game a crap game on the basis of having heard that it's a crap game could be a number of things -- but not 'underrating' it!

Anyhow, it's a loss to people who would enjoy the game if they really have deprived themselves of that pleasure on a false basis, and I can appreciate that it could be a loss to you as well if you would have enjoyed playing DQ with them.

Quote from: David Johansen;445544High Fantasy to this day holds the title for ugliest cover ever seen on an rpg.  The art inside was poor but not as spectacularly bad as the cover.

I think it's BECAUSE of that horrible cover art that I've always wanted to get a copy of High Fantasy... for whatever reason bad art can (sometimes) hold out a promise of strange possibilities that traditional high-end illustration never can. It requires a reading between the lines, "what is THAT supposed to be?" and imaginative interpretation.

Not that I would ever argue that High Fantasy is under-rated...

Quote from: Phillip;446383I suppose we must simply agree to disagree. Personally, I think that considering a crap game a crap game on the basis of having heard that it's a crap game could be a number of things -- but not 'underrating' it!

Anyhow, it's a loss to people who would enjoy the game if they really have deprived themselves of that pleasure on a false basis, and I can appreciate that it could be a loss to you as well if you would have enjoyed playing DQ with them.

Whereas I always consider blindly taking other people's word on something and refusing to experience it to be "underrating" it, especially when the complaints are not based on actual experience. If someone has a legitimate complaint so be it, but my experience suggests to me that DQ is not too complicated, does not get in the way while playing, and even is fairly easy to reference once one learns the system used to organise it. I found it an easier book to reference than my 1e D&D books. IMO most of the criticisms of DQ are not, in fact, what i would consider to be valid criticisms. I certainly don't consider it a "crap" game. When considering a game, I will consider the opinions of others, but I never completely discount something solely on the word of other people, and I definitely won't go around sharing a critique of something I didn't even experience for myself. At most I might say that I heard it was "whatever", because all this shit is opinion and taste. I suppose that also means part of considering something "underrated" to me is when something doesn't receive as wide-spread acceptance as I think it deserves, based on info I think is inaccurate. So am I wrong to think of "underrated" as meaning this? Can "underrated" only mean what you say it does? What constitutes "rating" something and who gets to do it? Usually, when I hear someone talking about something being "underrated" or "overrated" it seems they're talking about hype and public opinion. Are we discussing something different here? I thought I was contributing to the discussion, but if that's not what we're talking about then I need clarification so that I can contribute more meaningfully... or is this discussion just for special kids who "get it"?

Quote from: Phillip;446067Ditto Aces & Eights. It is today somewhat a 'deluxe' production, as EPT was back in the day, and a tour de force of game design. It seems that everyone who takes a look at it comes away impressed. A Western, though, even an alternate-historical one, just does not have the popularity of games involving the likes of Eldar Ghost Warriors and Deva Swordmages.

true. But it's interesting to note that Aces and Eights just went back to press for a third printing of the premium leathered book. Almost six years after it's five years after its initial release It's done very well for us and continues to sell.

It's actually spiked in sales again recently. So while a western may never sale in D&D numbers out the door they do sell consistently.

As Good as I thought A&8 was I really thought it would be a one-shot product with a shelf life of a few years and that would be it.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;445553Ditto! That cover just sold me and I'm a sucker for good herb-section And it cost less that 8$, including shipping.

My copy of Maelstrom just arrived and what was on Ebay described as a "fair reading copy" turned out to be pretty close to mint, especially for a book published in 1984. So I'm quite happy and look forward to flicking through it... and yes, that is quite an impressive herb section.