D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think subclasses sit in a different conceptual and mechanical space than prestige classes and paragon paths. The former is a built-in part of your class, while the latter offer an avenue of advancement separate from your class.

5e's subclasses get a bit more in the direction of a PP though, since you pick them several levels into your character's career. Not to say that they're equivalent or anything, just that it slides some in that direction. Frankly I think 5e would have benefited a lot from PPs. Maybe something slightly more flexible, like an 'overlay class' where you get one choice, you can take it at any point in a range of levels, and it just gives a bunch of 'swaps' and access, perhaps, to some kind of thematic mechanic or something. This could be very similar in execution to PPs, but would avoid the one awkwardness they had, which was "you are now an X" when suddenly the whole party's chosen path became manifest (EDs have this issue in spades).
I think the "it happens at a fixed level" actually would have worked FINE in AD&D, where there was no expectation of a fixed advancement of all members of a fairly stable party roster all at one time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I'm surprised that people are having difficulty getting this, because to me it's obviously true, and yes it's a real problem.

Another example would be the desire for needless symmetry (an absolute constant in "improvements" to RPG rules design), or needless consistency even when the consistency is actually harmful to the balance of the rules. Really though, thank you for writing this, because I think of a lot of kind-of-terrible rules and generally problematic attitudes re: rules stem from meta-aesthetic concerns that people aren't even consciously processing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You are still talking about a class of items, without naming any particular concrete examples. Can you quote at least one 5e rule that you feel is given in natural language, that cannot be understood the way it is written?

Not the OP and I can't think of ones that "cannot be understood", but I can think of some where the language gets in the way of the rule making sense, or where the meta-aesthetic desire to have a rule function in a particular way, even though it doesn't really make sense except on an aesthetic level, hampers understanding. Surprise comes immediately to mind. No single subject in D&D has had so many angry threads where people INSIST often quite rudely that there's no possible way to interpret surprise except as functioning this way or that way, and that people understanding it differently are intentionally engaging in malfeasance. It was practically a cliche on the 5E reddit for a while that there'd be a thread about surprise, and it would be full of people saying "Here's how it works I can't believe any human is stupid enough not to understand it, duh!", often with contradictory opinions about how it actually worked, naturally. Oddly this has been less hotly-fought here and I hope it stays that way. To this day some people don't even seem to get that there's not actually such a thing as a "surprise round" in 5E.

But almost all the issues with it relate to the way the surprise rules are written, and the fact that they're at odds with how previous editions worked and at odds with how some proportion of people (which seems to be significant) can understand surprise to work. I think if they'd been written in purely clear, mechanistic language, and it was made obvious that this was a gamist concept, not a simulationist one, and that it was done for balance reasons (to avoid overvaluing surprise), then people would be a lot clearer on it.

Btw I point-blank refuse to engage in any argument over what the surprise rules actually mean, I'm merely pointing out that they're ones where it's an issue. I know your question was honestly meant, but I think the danger with providing examples is that, as much as some, like you, will engage with them merely as examples, a lot of other people, will, without meaning to do anything wrong, instead try to argue the toss on what they do mean, and suggest they're not good examples because what they mean is "obvious" (I'm not sure I can convey appropriate levels of rolling my eyes at this use of "obvious" of course).

 

[jgsugden]

Take away all the fancy words.

We want rules that are simple and clear. We want them to be balanced and fun.

Stop worrying about the labels we apply to describe how we assemble the rules. Labels are there to summarize a concept, but the rub is that most people frame the concepts tied to a label differently, resulting in people arguing about definitions more than they work together to find solutions.

5E was a step forward because they moved towards simpler rules. They made the rules more clear than prior editions (in most places). The balance is better in 5E than in 3E or prior editions (and worse than 4E, but 4E's balance was achieved through too much uniformity). I've had incredible fun playing it. Could it be better? Yes. Hiding and skills could each use a bit of work, as could some of the classes, but overall we should be grateful and enjoy it for what it is - a great game.

 

[Umbran]

But almost all the issues with it relate to the way the surprise rules are written, and the fact that they're at odds with how previous editions worked

"It is at odds with how previous editions worked," is, I think, a much separate issue. If the new rules matched the old rules... they wouldn't be new rules, now would they?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Take away all the fancy words.

We want rules that are simple and clear. We want them to be balanced and fun.

Stop worrying about the labels we apply to describe how we assemble the rules. Labels are there to summarize a concept, but the rub is that most people frame the concepts tied to a label differently, resulting in people arguing about definitions more than they work together to find solutions.

5E was a step forward because they moved towards simpler rules. They made the rules more clear than prior editions (in most places). The balance is better in 5E than in 3E or prior editions (and worse than 4E, but 4E's balance was achieved through too much uniformity). I've had incredible fun playing it. Could it be better? Yes. Hiding and skills could each use a bit of work, as could some of the classes, but overall we should be grateful and enjoy it for what it is - a great game.

I think the OP's point is well-made, though.

5E is mostly a step forwards, but in the places that it isn't, it's sometimes the result of the desire to use natural language instead of being really obviously game-y. I would hope any future edition would learn from this, and either design rules differently so that wasn't a problem (because the places I think of natural language being a problem are where D&D IS trying to be a GAME, not a simulation but cloaking it), or just use clearer language where necessary.

I think there's a more general underlying problem with 5E in which the designers have their specific understandings of how things work which were not always adequately conveyed by the wording of the rules. That Feat that allows shield-shoving, for example. I don't think there was any easy way for a natural-language reading of that to determine that you only get the shove after an attack. I accept that you can come up with that, but I don't think it's obvious (and the evidence of perhaps most people initially interpreting it otherwise, both here and on reddit prior to the Sage Advice comment). Yet, had it been worded in a more game-y way, there wouldn't even have been a question. And indeed like a good proportion of Sage Advice stuff seems to be "this could have been solved by just wording it a little more obviously".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"It is at odds with how previous editions worked," is, I think, a much separate issue. If the new rules matched the old rules... they wouldn't be new rules, now would they?

Well to my mind it's slightly more complicated than that.

Obviously, you're right on a basic level - rules change each edition. But because they cloaked the rules on surprise in frankly confusing natural language, a lot of people, perhaps not reading carefully enough, perhaps just not understanding, seemed to think that there was a surprise round, or came to very different understandings of how surprise worked. Particularly common was the (mis)understanding that it basically worked the same way as before.

And that matters because when you change a rule significantly from how it functioned in previous editions, I think you need to make it really obvious both that it has been changed in a significant way, and how it functions now. This is particularly true for games which have gone for multiple editions with more similar rules on a subject. I don't remember surprise ever really confusing people in previous editions. In 5E though thousand+ reply reddit threads with some very dramatic up and down voting show that is no longer the case.

I've run and played a lot of 5E. Most of the rules, I could give you correct from the top of my head (or really close). Surprise? I wouldn't even try. And the debates are all about both the language used and what is actually supposed to happen. And clear language would have resolved this.

As an aside, I'd add that I think this is partly a designer problem. Like, I love Jeremy Crawford as a designer generally, and he also seems cool, but man he does enjoy writing cryptic answers to things. Even some of this Sage Advice is barely less cryptic than the rules he's asking about. And given his good-natured-ness, I doubt this is him trying to be difficult, or present riddles, but rather the meaning is obvious to him, and not to others. Which is more of a danger with natural language than more mechanistic language.

 

[Oofta]

Well to my mind it's slightly more complicated than that.

Obviously, you're right on a basic level - rules change each edition. But because they cloaked the rules on surprise in frankly confusing natural language, a lot of people, perhaps not reading carefully enough, perhaps just not understanding, seemed to think that there was a surprise round, or came to very different understandings of how surprise worked. Particularly common was the (mis)understanding that it basically worked the same way as before.

And that matters because when you change a rule significantly from how it functioned in previous editions, I think you need to make it really obvious both that it has been changed in a significant way, and how it functions now. This is particularly true for games which have gone for multiple editions with more similar rules on a subject. I don't remember surprise ever really confusing people in previous editions. In 5E though thousand+ reply reddit threads with some very dramatic up and down voting show that is no longer the case.

I've run and played a lot of 5E. Most of the rules, I could give you correct from the top of my head (or really close). Surprise? I wouldn't even try. And the debates are all about both the language used and what is actually supposed to happen. And clear language would have resolved this.

As an aside, I'd add that I think this is partly a designer problem. Like, I love Jeremy Crawford as a designer generally, and he also seems cool, but man he does enjoy writing cryptic answers to things. Even some of this Sage Advice is barely less cryptic than the rules he's asking about. And given his good-natured-ness, I doubt this is him trying to be difficult, or present riddles, but rather the meaning is obvious to him, and not to others. Which is more of a danger with natural language than more mechanistic language.

Funny thing is I think the surprise rules are perfectly clear. Seems pretty simple to me: if you didn't notice the enemy until combat starts you can't do anything until the end of your first turn. How is that hard?

Then again I really like the stealth rules (previous editions led to head scratching immersion breaking scenarios) so there's no accounting for taste.

 

[Cadence]

The one 5e example I have of where natural language caused me trouble is the Charm Person spell. We were having a discussion on another thread about what a "friendly acquaintance" would do.

Could a friendly acquaintance use a sleep spell on you if you were acting out of control and looked like you were going to do something illegal or might hurt yourself?

The conversation really changed when we realized charmed is a condition...

[Even with that, am I doing something "harmful to it" if I attack its friends? steal from it? make it disobey the commandsit was given by its employer?]

Would italicizing or bolding or capitalizing charmed in the description have been that big of a violation of the asthetic? Or putting those bullet points in again? Or parenthetically saying "see Charmed, pg. #"?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Funny thing is I think the surprise rules are perfectly clear. Seems pretty simple to me: if you didn't notice the enemy until combat starts you can't do anything until the end of your first turn. How is that hard?

Then again I really like the stealth rules (previous editions led to head scratching immersion breaking scenarios) so there's no accounting for taste.

Dude. DUDE.

I told you that I wasn't going to play this game!

I told you loads of people swear blind that they're completely clear and then give summaries or descriptions that do not much up with the rules (no comment on whether yours is this way). Worse, a lot of alternative understandings arguably work better than the actual rules (in that they are more naturalistic and/or playable).

Point is, if it was so obvious, there wouldn't be so many misunderstandings of how it works, nor so much debate over how it works (particularly when you get to corner-case situations).