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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8111470" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>The choice to employ natural language in wasn’t a particular aesthetic the developers were aiming for, but rather a response to player feedback, both the general critique of 4e’s over-reliance on keywords, and in the playtest surveys. I do agree that it was a poor choice, but I see the problem being more about designing by popular vote instead of by clear and consistent design principles and goals, than about aesthetics. Also, the fact that WotC is really bad at writing natural language. 5e is actually written quite technically, it just tries to <em>appear</em> natural by using natural-sounding words in technical ways.I guess one could argue that in pursuing a natural language aesthetic without sacrificing technical precision they ended up with the worst parts of both approaches.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t see prestige classes as aesthetically preferable over Paragon Paths <em>at all</em>. Paragon Paths follow a clean, consistent design structure, which is far more aesthetically pleasing than the mess that is Paragon Paths. Likewise, I don’t think the 3e skill rank system is the least bit aesthetically pleasing. It’s a giant pile of fiddly math. It looks ugly and it plays poorly. In contrast, 5e’s system where there’s a unified proficiency bonus that increases with level and applies to all proficient checks is highly aesthetically pleasing.</p><p></p><p>I struggle to grok your argument because I’m not seeing the consistent thread between the design elements you say are driven by “meta-aesthetics.” It also doesn’t really help that aesthetics are highly subjective. Designs that you find aesthetically pleasing may be aesthetically displeasing to others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8111470, member: 6779196"] The choice to employ natural language in wasn’t a particular aesthetic the developers were aiming for, but rather a response to player feedback, both the general critique of 4e’s over-reliance on keywords, and in the playtest surveys. I do agree that it was a poor choice, but I see the problem being more about designing by popular vote instead of by clear and consistent design principles and goals, than about aesthetics. Also, the fact that WotC is really bad at writing natural language. 5e is actually written quite technically, it just tries to [I]appear[/I] natural by using natural-sounding words in technical ways.I guess one could argue that in pursuing a natural language aesthetic without sacrificing technical precision they ended up with the worst parts of both approaches. I don’t see prestige classes as aesthetically preferable over Paragon Paths [I]at all[/I]. Paragon Paths follow a clean, consistent design structure, which is far more aesthetically pleasing than the mess that is Paragon Paths. Likewise, I don’t think the 3e skill rank system is the least bit aesthetically pleasing. It’s a giant pile of fiddly math. It looks ugly and it plays poorly. In contrast, 5e’s system where there’s a unified proficiency bonus that increases with level and applies to all proficient checks is highly aesthetically pleasing. I struggle to grok your argument because I’m not seeing the consistent thread between the design elements you say are driven by “meta-aesthetics.” It also doesn’t really help that aesthetics are highly subjective. Designs that you find aesthetically pleasing may be aesthetically displeasing to others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top