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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8111891" data-attributes="member: 6779196">All rules are created with a certain look and feel in mind, as well as well as with ease of use, balance, etc. Different designers will prioritize things differently; for instance, 4e placed a high priority in cross-class balance, particularly as it relates to damage output and tactical battlefield manipulation. It also had a particular design aesthetic that was influenced by its intended VTT compatibility, which accounts for the “videogamey” feel many felt it had.In contrast, 5e prioritizes cross-class balance less highly, aiming for a general feeling that everyone can contribute meaningfully over tight mathematical parity. The aesthetic it aims for is an informal conversation with the audience, emphasizing the conversational nature of the core gameplay loop (this was something they really tried to emphasize in the play test process).3e placed very low priority on game balance but very high priority on a particular internal logic. How much damage any given character could do per round or how much they could contribute to the group was not given near as much attention as whether or not the character’s capabilities were consistent with this internal logic. It’s design aesthetic was of a comprehensive catalogue of the world this internal logic described.That’s where I’m struggling to understand the argument being put forth here. I understand the concept of meta-aesthetics, of designing to achieve a particular look and feel. I just see them as a concern in all game design. It seems like the OP has a certain design aesthetic they don’t care for, and are trying to claim that rules with this aesthetic are poor because they are too focused on aesthetic instead of other design concerns.</blockquote>

Verification