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: 8112833" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I suck at being succinct, but I will try. Reusing Umbran's useful physics/elegance analogy.</p><p></p><p>Pretend some new phenomenon is discovered, driving a search for new theory. Two alternative theories are proposed. One of those theories is "ugly" or "inelegant"--its equations are cumbersome, complicated (e.g. several parts/functions), or reliant on new constants of nature that can only be measured by observation, not calculated mathematically (the way pi is, for instance). The other theory is meaningfully more elegant--simple and sweet, coming from first principles, etc. The "ugly" theory, however, is demonstrably superior at predicting the actual behavior of this new phenomenon: let's say, 10% of the time, the elegant theory predicts something is almost certain to happen but doesn't, or almost certainly won't happen but does, while the "ugly" theory has such problems only 0.1% of the time.</p><p></p><p>It would be entirely valid to say, "The fact that this elegant theory is <em>close</em> but still suspiciously erroneous indicates we need to do more study. We can reasonably expect that an elegant solution exists, we just haven't found it yet." It would also be entirely valid to admit that the elegant theory doesn't work as well, but is a sufficiently good approximation much of the time--that's how Newton's laws work, they're good approximations of <em>both</em> quantum theory <em>and</em> Einstein's equations as long as certain parameters aren't too big (e.g. speed) or too small (e.g. amount of things). It can even be valid to argue that the elegant theory is an easier place to <em>start</em> so you get a handle on what phenomena are involved, before grappling with all the moving parts of the "ugly" theory.</p><p></p><p>I am asserting that it is NOT valid to say, "We should still use the elegant theory, and presume it is closest to the correct understanding of this phenomenon, <em>despite</em> knowing it makes wrong predictions, <em>because</em> it is more elegant; further, this choice should be intuitively obvious." In other words, I am arguing against "elegance is <strong>the best </strong>metric of utility, and this is <strong>self-evident</strong>." Likewise, meta-aesthetics--ANY meta-aesthetics, whether or not I personally care for them--are NOT the best metric of game design. They absolutely can be a wonderful metric, and designers ignore meta-aesthetics at their peril! Again, just so this is EXTREMELY EXPLICITLY said: <strong>Good game designers should care about meta-aesthetics. Period.</strong> But just because something is too important to ignore, <em>does not</em> imply that it is therefore <em>more important than any other consideration</em>, to say nothing of that implication being self-evident.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not--at all--saying that 4e's power list wasn't bloated (though there are reasons why your numbers are suspicious to me, that I'll get to in a moment). I am, however, saying that the <em>strident insistence</em> that "all Martial characters should draw their powers from the same Martial-only list" reflects an excessive belief that a certain meta-aesthetic ("one-stop-shopping," centralization, whatever you want to call it) is inherently and axiomatically <em>more important</em> than any game design considerations that might apply. That is, these assertions are made without context, plan, or anything like caution; they are instead asserted immediately, as obvious and unalloyed goods, without any (stated) thought to the potential negative consequences.</p><p></p><p>Now, as for those numbers themselves: how on earth did you achieve that? Even if you restricted character options down to, say, 12 classes (about half of 4e's actual set) <em>and</em> made only 3 builds apiece on average (about 1 less than my rough-and-ready average of 4e's actual options) <em>and</em> eliminated all themes <em>and</em> made it so there were only an average of 2 paragon paths per class with zero PPs for anything else (such as race), <em>and</em> only offered one ED per power source, <em>and</em> only offered one specific power per build (including Utilities) at any given level where powers are offered, <em>and</em> only offered say 20 races (far lower than actual 4e)...well, let's see. All of these numbers are minimums, by the way--some PPs and EDs get more powers through their features.</p><p>Per class: 60 powers</p><p>Per race: 1</p><p>Per PP: 3</p><p>Per ED: 1</p><p></p><p>12*60+20*1+2*12*3+1*3 = 720+20+72+3 = 815</p><p></p><p>So, yeah, I'd be real curious as to how you managed to cram anything even <em>remotely</em> like 4e's diversity of builds and options into only 500 powers, given how many <em>things</em> "powers" were for. Because I didn't even touch on anything like items that <em>do</em> something (each of which will have its own power), basic/universal powers, themes/backgrounds that might offer powers, etc.</p><p></p><p>(Also, I'd like your cite on the 50k number. All evidence I can find--including stuff I myself have said about this topic in the past, when the digital tools still existed--puts it closer to a fifth or sixth of that amount, between 8k and 10k.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8112833, member: 6790260"] I suck at being succinct, but I will try. Reusing Umbran's useful physics/elegance analogy. Pretend some new phenomenon is discovered, driving a search for new theory. Two alternative theories are proposed. One of those theories is "ugly" or "inelegant"--its equations are cumbersome, complicated (e.g. several parts/functions), or reliant on new constants of nature that can only be measured by observation, not calculated mathematically (the way pi is, for instance). The other theory is meaningfully more elegant--simple and sweet, coming from first principles, etc. The "ugly" theory, however, is demonstrably superior at predicting the actual behavior of this new phenomenon: let's say, 10% of the time, the elegant theory predicts something is almost certain to happen but doesn't, or almost certainly won't happen but does, while the "ugly" theory has such problems only 0.1% of the time. It would be entirely valid to say, "The fact that this elegant theory is [I]close[/I] but still suspiciously erroneous indicates we need to do more study. We can reasonably expect that an elegant solution exists, we just haven't found it yet." It would also be entirely valid to admit that the elegant theory doesn't work as well, but is a sufficiently good approximation much of the time--that's how Newton's laws work, they're good approximations of [I]both[/I] quantum theory [I]and[/I] Einstein's equations as long as certain parameters aren't too big (e.g. speed) or too small (e.g. amount of things). It can even be valid to argue that the elegant theory is an easier place to [I]start[/I] so you get a handle on what phenomena are involved, before grappling with all the moving parts of the "ugly" theory. I am asserting that it is NOT valid to say, "We should still use the elegant theory, and presume it is closest to the correct understanding of this phenomenon, [I]despite[/I] knowing it makes wrong predictions, [I]because[/I] it is more elegant; further, this choice should be intuitively obvious." In other words, I am arguing against "elegance is [B]the best [/B]metric of utility, and this is [B]self-evident[/B]." Likewise, meta-aesthetics--ANY meta-aesthetics, whether or not I personally care for them--are NOT the best metric of game design. They absolutely can be a wonderful metric, and designers ignore meta-aesthetics at their peril! Again, just so this is EXTREMELY EXPLICITLY said: [B]Good game designers should care about meta-aesthetics. Period.[/B] But just because something is too important to ignore, [I]does not[/I] imply that it is therefore [I]more important than any other consideration[/I], to say nothing of that implication being self-evident. I'm not--at all--saying that 4e's power list wasn't bloated (though there are reasons why your numbers are suspicious to me, that I'll get to in a moment). I am, however, saying that the [I]strident insistence[/I] that "all Martial characters should draw their powers from the same Martial-only list" reflects an excessive belief that a certain meta-aesthetic ("one-stop-shopping," centralization, whatever you want to call it) is inherently and axiomatically [I]more important[/I] than any game design considerations that might apply. That is, these assertions are made without context, plan, or anything like caution; they are instead asserted immediately, as obvious and unalloyed goods, without any (stated) thought to the potential negative consequences. Now, as for those numbers themselves: how on earth did you achieve that? Even if you restricted character options down to, say, 12 classes (about half of 4e's actual set) [I]and[/I] made only 3 builds apiece on average (about 1 less than my rough-and-ready average of 4e's actual options) [I]and[/I] eliminated all themes [I]and[/I] made it so there were only an average of 2 paragon paths per class with zero PPs for anything else (such as race), [I]and[/I] only offered one ED per power source, [I]and[/I] only offered one specific power per build (including Utilities) at any given level where powers are offered, [I]and[/I] only offered say 20 races (far lower than actual 4e)...well, let's see. All of these numbers are minimums, by the way--some PPs and EDs get more powers through their features. Per class: 60 powers Per race: 1 Per PP: 3 Per ED: 1 12*60+20*1+2*12*3+1*3 = 720+20+72+3 = 815 So, yeah, I'd be real curious as to how you managed to cram anything even [I]remotely[/I] like 4e's diversity of builds and options into only 500 powers, given how many [I]things[/I] "powers" were for. Because I didn't even touch on anything like items that [I]do[/I] something (each of which will have its own power), basic/universal powers, themes/backgrounds that might offer powers, etc. (Also, I'd like your cite on the 50k number. All evidence I can find--including stuff I myself have said about this topic in the past, when the digital tools still existed--puts it closer to a fifth or sixth of that amount, between 8k and 10k.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top