EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
This isn't targeted at any specific game, though I'm likely to criticize both 3.x/PF1e and 5e because they are (in some sense) the "old guard" and "new hotness" on this topic.
So, there are a lot of motives when designing a game, and I do not mean to comment on the spectrum of reasons one might consider. That's well above my pay grade. However, something that I don't think is so far above my pay grade is arguments in favor of rules elements, structures, or principles because they make the rules look/feel nice, without regard for the potential costs this can have to designers, DMs, and players. I'm not talking about a desire for good art/presentation, nor for flavorful descriptions or concepts supported by the rules. Rather, I'm referring to a desire for rules because they have satisfying aesthetic features like symmetry, one-stop-shopping reference lists, brevity, and (possibly the most controversial on this list) natural language. The former things are just regular aesthetics, whether aesthetics of the physical materials or aesthetics of the play experience. I'm talking about "meta-aesthetics," for lack of a better term: aesthetic concerns purely at the design level, in some sense "before" the aesthetics of the materials or play-experience.
I see a lot of arguments that, in effect, treat these meta-aesthetics as one of the most important features of game design. Many people trying to "fix" 4e, for example, are incredibly keen on condensing all powers down to either a per-source list, or to even a single list for all classes. The reasons given rarely have much of anything to do with direct design concerns like effectiveness or testable mechanics, and almost always ignore stuff like "what about powers with subclass-based riders?", instead focused almost entirely on the bald assertion that a single, repeatedly-referenced list is always superior.
I don't think I'll surprise anyone by saying that I disagree with this, and with most other meta-aesthetic arguments about the ways we structure our rulesets. Meta-aesthetics are NOT an invalid reason to design something. They can, in fact, be great! My arguments for why it was good that power sources existed in 4e (re: it gave us some really cool classes like Avenger and Shaman) are, at least in part, based on meta-aesthetics. What I find frankly a little disturbing is the axiomatic insistence that (some) meta-aesthetics override effectively all other concerns. This belief, asserted without defense and indeed with an implication that it needs no defense, that sacrifices of balance, at-table experience, design space, and indeed pretty much any other element of game design, are almost always worthwhile if they produce rules that have "better" meta-aesthetics. That it takes a LOT of serious problems for even a small meta-aesthetic gain to be put off the table.
Now, it's entirely possible I'm just not hearing what's actually being said--it wouldn't be the first time. I am, as always, open to having the record set straight. I'm also open to people defending why these meta-aesthetic concerns should have more weight than I've given them up to now. But either way, I think we can benefit from dragging this implicit assumption out into the open and having a talk about what weight "rules that look nice on paper" etc. should be given.
So, there are a lot of motives when designing a game, and I do not mean to comment on the spectrum of reasons one might consider. That's well above my pay grade. However, something that I don't think is so far above my pay grade is arguments in favor of rules elements, structures, or principles because they make the rules look/feel nice, without regard for the potential costs this can have to designers, DMs, and players. I'm not talking about a desire for good art/presentation, nor for flavorful descriptions or concepts supported by the rules. Rather, I'm referring to a desire for rules because they have satisfying aesthetic features like symmetry, one-stop-shopping reference lists, brevity, and (possibly the most controversial on this list) natural language. The former things are just regular aesthetics, whether aesthetics of the physical materials or aesthetics of the play experience. I'm talking about "meta-aesthetics," for lack of a better term: aesthetic concerns purely at the design level, in some sense "before" the aesthetics of the materials or play-experience.
I see a lot of arguments that, in effect, treat these meta-aesthetics as one of the most important features of game design. Many people trying to "fix" 4e, for example, are incredibly keen on condensing all powers down to either a per-source list, or to even a single list for all classes. The reasons given rarely have much of anything to do with direct design concerns like effectiveness or testable mechanics, and almost always ignore stuff like "what about powers with subclass-based riders?", instead focused almost entirely on the bald assertion that a single, repeatedly-referenced list is always superior.
I don't think I'll surprise anyone by saying that I disagree with this, and with most other meta-aesthetic arguments about the ways we structure our rulesets. Meta-aesthetics are NOT an invalid reason to design something. They can, in fact, be great! My arguments for why it was good that power sources existed in 4e (re: it gave us some really cool classes like Avenger and Shaman) are, at least in part, based on meta-aesthetics. What I find frankly a little disturbing is the axiomatic insistence that (some) meta-aesthetics override effectively all other concerns. This belief, asserted without defense and indeed with an implication that it needs no defense, that sacrifices of balance, at-table experience, design space, and indeed pretty much any other element of game design, are almost always worthwhile if they produce rules that have "better" meta-aesthetics. That it takes a LOT of serious problems for even a small meta-aesthetic gain to be put off the table.
Now, it's entirely possible I'm just not hearing what's actually being said--it wouldn't be the first time. I am, as always, open to having the record set straight. I'm also open to people defending why these meta-aesthetic concerns should have more weight than I've given them up to now. But either way, I think we can benefit from dragging this implicit assumption out into the open and having a talk about what weight "rules that look nice on paper" etc. should be given.
Last edited:
