Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8111370" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Well, as noted, "natural language" is a thing where I think these meta-aesthetics have got it wrong.</p><p></p><p>Natural language was favored by 5e's designers because, they claimed, it would make things so much better. There would be no need to learn any special words, no need to check references, because everything would just mean what it says! You could look at it and just know, because you already know how to read English (or whatever language the text was translated into).</p><p></p><p>Except...it didn't. This decision, driven by the <em>meta-aesthetic</em> desire to have rules that "need no explanation," has resulted in rules...that still need explanation. And rules that, a non-negligible portion of the time, <em>cannot work even in principle</em> unless the DM does actually explain them. It doesn't come up constantly, not even once a session necessarily, but it <em>does</em> come up, and has in actual games I have personally played. (No 5e game I've played in has lasted more than ten sessions, and part of it <em>was</em> this very problem in one of those games.)</p><p></p><p>By comparison, 4e did the "ugly" choice of having jargon, specifically, keywords. Each keyword had a well-defined meaning--which might not necessarily correspond to its use in "natural language," but which was applied consistently when it was used. Learning the jargon was important--e.g., knowing the difference between the confusingly-similar "burst" and "blast" area keywords--but once you knew it, you had <em>reliable</em> knowledge about the game, a seriously valuable tool. And because the <em>designers</em> knew the keywords, they had clear building blocks for constructing new things. If they happened to find something that had been left out, they could define new keywords for those things.</p><p></p><p>As I said, this is <em>probably</em> going to be the most controversial example, so I understand if this isn't exactly an example you agree with. But it is relatively convenient to articulate the difference.</p><p></p><p>A different example would be Prestige Classes vs. Paragon Paths. In both 3e and 4e, these were higher-level features that you had to qualify for, and which unlocked new abilities and (potentially) synergies with your existing ones. The Prestige Class structure sought meta-aesthetics by having precise, and often narrative, requirements for entry...and ended up being a <em>nightmare</em> of design as a result, where mediocre or even awful PrCs had extensive and painful requirements, while extremely powerful options might have no more than "take a naughty word feat and pay some guild dues now and then." The meta-aesthetic value of "these things <em>look like</em> something that requires special training" resulted in flat-out BAD game design, even though the underlying idea--taking a small, focused "alternate class" for a few levels--was sound and interesting.</p><p></p><p>Paragon Paths, by comparison, were extremely easy to qualify for (rarely having more than 1-2 requirements, many of which you could meet by taking a single multiclass feat), were structured so as to give benefits within a consistent overall power level even if individual options were still stronger or weaker, and did not prioritize having the <em>look</em> and <em>feel</em> of something you had to "work for" in order to enter. PPs were this specialization process done right, not massively over-valuing the meta-aesthetic considerations of the concept. PPs focused on ensuring that the overall play experience happened as intended, and not on ensuring that the mechanics for a thing <em>looked</em> like they "should be" mechanics for that thing.</p><p></p><p>And yes, you're right that this is not something that can be easily assigned to either design philosophy or specific rules. It leans closer to the former, but it's also "practical" in the sense that it gets really hung up on the specific pieces used for achieving one's ends. Digging a little deeper on that: There are (at least) three values one can have when designing a game. One can value effectiveness, asking, "Does this game achieve the experience I designed it for?" One can value message, asking, "Does this game communicate to the player the messages I want to send?" (Consider Monopoly for an almost exclusively message-centric game.) Or one can value these "meta-aesthetics" I'm talking about, asking, "Do the rules of this game have a pleasing appearance and structure?"</p><p></p><p>I'm asserting that "a pleasing appearance and structure"--such as, for example, 3.x's skill point system, which <em>feels</em> like a great way to handle skills but tends to be super punishing to anyone who likes variety or playing against type--has become a dominant or even hegemonic goal for many in design-discussion places (such as this forum).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8111370, member: 6790260"] Well, as noted, "natural language" is a thing where I think these meta-aesthetics have got it wrong. Natural language was favored by 5e's designers because, they claimed, it would make things so much better. There would be no need to learn any special words, no need to check references, because everything would just mean what it says! You could look at it and just know, because you already know how to read English (or whatever language the text was translated into). Except...it didn't. This decision, driven by the [I]meta-aesthetic[/I] desire to have rules that "need no explanation," has resulted in rules...that still need explanation. And rules that, a non-negligible portion of the time, [I]cannot work even in principle[/I] unless the DM does actually explain them. It doesn't come up constantly, not even once a session necessarily, but it [I]does[/I] come up, and has in actual games I have personally played. (No 5e game I've played in has lasted more than ten sessions, and part of it [I]was[/I] this very problem in one of those games.) By comparison, 4e did the "ugly" choice of having jargon, specifically, keywords. Each keyword had a well-defined meaning--which might not necessarily correspond to its use in "natural language," but which was applied consistently when it was used. Learning the jargon was important--e.g., knowing the difference between the confusingly-similar "burst" and "blast" area keywords--but once you knew it, you had [I]reliable[/I] knowledge about the game, a seriously valuable tool. And because the [I]designers[/I] knew the keywords, they had clear building blocks for constructing new things. If they happened to find something that had been left out, they could define new keywords for those things. As I said, this is [I]probably[/I] going to be the most controversial example, so I understand if this isn't exactly an example you agree with. But it is relatively convenient to articulate the difference. A different example would be Prestige Classes vs. Paragon Paths. In both 3e and 4e, these were higher-level features that you had to qualify for, and which unlocked new abilities and (potentially) synergies with your existing ones. The Prestige Class structure sought meta-aesthetics by having precise, and often narrative, requirements for entry...and ended up being a [I]nightmare[/I] of design as a result, where mediocre or even awful PrCs had extensive and painful requirements, while extremely powerful options might have no more than "take a naughty word feat and pay some guild dues now and then." The meta-aesthetic value of "these things [I]look like[/I] something that requires special training" resulted in flat-out BAD game design, even though the underlying idea--taking a small, focused "alternate class" for a few levels--was sound and interesting. Paragon Paths, by comparison, were extremely easy to qualify for (rarely having more than 1-2 requirements, many of which you could meet by taking a single multiclass feat), were structured so as to give benefits within a consistent overall power level even if individual options were still stronger or weaker, and did not prioritize having the [I]look[/I] and [I]feel[/I] of something you had to "work for" in order to enter. PPs were this specialization process done right, not massively over-valuing the meta-aesthetic considerations of the concept. PPs focused on ensuring that the overall play experience happened as intended, and not on ensuring that the mechanics for a thing [I]looked[/I] like they "should be" mechanics for that thing. And yes, you're right that this is not something that can be easily assigned to either design philosophy or specific rules. It leans closer to the former, but it's also "practical" in the sense that it gets really hung up on the specific pieces used for achieving one's ends. Digging a little deeper on that: There are (at least) three values one can have when designing a game. One can value effectiveness, asking, "Does this game achieve the experience I designed it for?" One can value message, asking, "Does this game communicate to the player the messages I want to send?" (Consider Monopoly for an almost exclusively message-centric game.) Or one can value these "meta-aesthetics" I'm talking about, asking, "Do the rules of this game have a pleasing appearance and structure?" I'm asserting that "a pleasing appearance and structure"--such as, for example, 3.x's skill point system, which [I]feels[/I] like a great way to handle skills but tends to be super punishing to anyone who likes variety or playing against type--has become a dominant or even hegemonic goal for many in design-discussion places (such as this forum). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top