Well one can easily go too far in one direction trying to fix a problem.
D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
I think that the natural language approach was also informed by "giving the DM Authority" Ultimately the DM is going to have issue rulings in any case even where keywords and careful definitions are used. There used to be a very strong push to the notion that the Rules as Written was the ultimate authority, overriding the authority of the DM. I think that, that notion failed, in 3.x and 4e. There are just too many edge cases and corner case for ultimate codification.
So, if you are going back to the DM anyway there is a lot to be gained by simplifying the language, encourage a culture of rulings not rules and run with that.
So, if you are going back to the DM anyway there is a lot to be gained by simplifying the language, encourage a culture of rulings not rules and run with that.
FrozenNorth
Hero
There is some irony in the fact that your first post, written more technically elicited several posts asking for clarification, so you had to write a second post in more natural language.
Laurefindel
Legend
I get the OP. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
I'm of the type who wished that the Warlock was an Int casters just because we'd had a perfect symmetry of 2 Int casters, 2 Cha casters, and 2 Wis casters (in pre-artificer 5e)
I like 5e's natural language and use of "you" in abilities and class features. I didn't know I did until I went back to 3e and 4e book (and PF 2) and found it heavy (although for different reasons), and was quickly turned off.
Balance is key of course, but my Goldilocks zone between "too dry" and "too flowery" apparently sits more toward the "flowery" part of the spectrum than that of the OP.
So I don't know if it's overrated or not, but I don't feel like playing the games i don't rate well anymore.
I'm of the type who wished that the Warlock was an Int casters just because we'd had a perfect symmetry of 2 Int casters, 2 Cha casters, and 2 Wis casters (in pre-artificer 5e)
I like 5e's natural language and use of "you" in abilities and class features. I didn't know I did until I went back to 3e and 4e book (and PF 2) and found it heavy (although for different reasons), and was quickly turned off.
Balance is key of course, but my Goldilocks zone between "too dry" and "too flowery" apparently sits more toward the "flowery" part of the spectrum than that of the OP.
So I don't know if it's overrated or not, but I don't feel like playing the games i don't rate well anymore.
FrozenNorth
Hero
Also, the actual M:tG rules are extremely complex and fiddly. I would never run a tournament for that reason.
Wasteland Knight
Adventurer
I like using “keywords” (some might say “jargon”) to clearly delineate game effects.
it’s a good filter. If Lear ing a new vocabulary of 25 to 50 words is too high a barrier fir a potential player, then that player isn’t a good fit for my table.
it’s a good filter. If Lear ing a new vocabulary of 25 to 50 words is too high a barrier fir a potential player, then that player isn’t a good fit for my table.
Li Shenron
Legend
Weird, but while symmetry is definitely driven by aesthetic (and generally speaking I think symmetry is of minimal benefit), I don't think brevity and natural language are motivated by aesthetic.
Brevity vs longevity: neither is intrinsically more "aesthetic" than the other. Ask minimalism artists what they think it's more aesthetic, then ask baroque artists... Brevity is IMHO always preferable in a manual-style book such as a game's rulebook, but the motivation is usability, and it's a very practical one.
Keyword-based rules to me sound a lot more aesthetic-driven than natural language.
Well the opposite can also be a good filter: a game with mostly natural language and few "keywords" probably keeps away players that aren't a good fit for OUR table.
Or to put it another way, trusting the DM and acknowledging that if players didn't trust the DM, the game was probably doomed no matter how precise the rules were.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
A preference for more clear rules does not imply a lack of trust or apprehension about applied GM judgement. I like games that leave room for GM judgement in areas where they are ill suited. I love when a game directs me to make a decision or leaves areas blocked off for me. You see this all over the place in games like Apocalypse World or Torchbearer. I just do not want to wrestle with the rules of game as a GM or a player.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
