Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
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="Undrave" data-source="post: 8111807" data-attributes="member: 7015698"><p>Well, when it comes to the Knacks, I think they should be treated like Fighting style. It makes way more sense if there's a short list to simply put it with the Class, but that if two Knacks do the same thing, they should be named the same thing. </p><p></p><p>"Don't make two identical option when you could make one generic option' is actually a gamist concern. </p><p></p><p>I think your Meta-aesthetic just include all three aesthetics: gamist, simulationist, narrativist. Those are meta aesthetic and have different goals and different individuals value them differently. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Keywords can be pretty important if something happens all the time. I think Yu-gi-oh! might actually be a good exemple because it's 'keywords' system was developed over multiple sets as rule concepts became more and more prevalent. For exemple, early cards would say something like "target 1 card in your opponent's graveyard and remove it from play". These cards were very rare in the early days but became more and more common (and more and more important as the graveyard became like a second hand) until eventually "remove from play" was shortened to "banish". </p><p></p><p>Another one is the concept of piercing damage where older cards would say "During battle between (???<em>) and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." which was eventually shortened to "If (???</em>) attacks a Defense Position monster, inflict piercing battle damage to your opponent.". </p><p></p><p>Piercing or 'trample' had been a fairly common jargon amongst fans to begin with. </p><p></p><p>They also developed problem solving text which made this much more uniformed. For exemple, the cost to activate a card is ALWAYS placed before a colon, and effect of the card afterward. Costs and effect have different timing and interaction with rules so that these are always worded and presented the same way avoids complication. </p><p></p><p>D&D already has keywords, such as 'saving throw' and 'ability check' and 'melee attack' or 'grapple' or 'fire damage'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Undrave, post: 8111807, member: 7015698"] Well, when it comes to the Knacks, I think they should be treated like Fighting style. It makes way more sense if there's a short list to simply put it with the Class, but that if two Knacks do the same thing, they should be named the same thing. "Don't make two identical option when you could make one generic option' is actually a gamist concern. I think your Meta-aesthetic just include all three aesthetics: gamist, simulationist, narrativist. Those are meta aesthetic and have different goals and different individuals value them differently. Keywords can be pretty important if something happens all the time. I think Yu-gi-oh! might actually be a good exemple because it's 'keywords' system was developed over multiple sets as rule concepts became more and more prevalent. For exemple, early cards would say something like "target 1 card in your opponent's graveyard and remove it from play". These cards were very rare in the early days but became more and more common (and more and more important as the graveyard became like a second hand) until eventually "remove from play" was shortened to "banish". Another one is the concept of piercing damage where older cards would say "During battle between (???[I]) and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." which was eventually shortened to "If (???[/I]) attacks a Defense Position monster, inflict piercing battle damage to your opponent.". Piercing or 'trample' had been a fairly common jargon amongst fans to begin with. They also developed problem solving text which made this much more uniformed. For exemple, the cost to activate a card is ALWAYS placed before a colon, and effect of the card afterward. Costs and effect have different timing and interaction with rules so that these are always worded and presented the same way avoids complication. D&D already has keywords, such as 'saving throw' and 'ability check' and 'melee attack' or 'grapple' or 'fire damage'. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top