Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monayuris" data-source="post: 8112923" data-attributes="member: 6859536">From a purely abstract concept, I agree with you. If an 'ugly' theory is more effective than either the nature of what is theorized is too complex to be covered in an elegant manner, or that we have not yet discovered how to reduce the 'ugly' to something elegant.In terms of game designers... I think the aesthetics of their rules should be something personal and be a part of the concept of the rules that are provided. In other words, a game designer should decide for themselves how elegant or ugly their rules are to be based on their own desires.I will try to discuss it in more concrete terms because I'm more wired that way. Take the aesthetics of two wildly different game systems...Dungeon World: The primary aesthetics of Dungeon World is the concept of making moves. Maybe this is an elegant theory (I don't know if elegant or ugly are absolutes -- like do you intend for ALL elegant methods to be considered ineffective?). Make a move, roll the dice, have the GM respond with a soft move, hard move, or success. This is elegant. Whether it is considered ineffective is in the eye of the beholder. But this elegance is expressed in the universality of the resolution mechanic. The mechanic is the same, it is elegant, and its effectiveness is up to the beholder.D&D Basic / ExpertThere is no real primary aesthetic. Perhaps it may be considered 'ugly' by your metric. Attacks are d20 consulting a 'to-hit' matrix. Performing a thief skill is a percentile roll. Listening at doors or lifting gates is an 'X in 6. chance. Turn Undead is a 2d6 roll. Ability rolls are 1d20 roll under your score. Reactions, Morale, so on, and so on. All different approaches in mechanics. I am a fan of B/X and I would consider this to be 'ugly' under your definition.But what does it really mean in terms of game design? I don't necessarily agree that elegance in game design is limiting.. sometimes and often it works out. There are games that are elegant and effective. I also don't necessarily agree that 'ugly' is a more effective way. But there are degrees and there are intangibles.In my opinion, in Basic/Expert there is an intangible (to use your term) 'meta-aesthetic" to the 'ugly' of differing mechanics in play. This is the feeling that if I choose an action the fact that the mechanic is different creates an aesthetic that I am doing something unique and different. For example, if a Cleric decides to Turn Undead... the physical act of picking up 2 d6's (instead of a d20) creates an aesthetic that the character is doing something different and unique. The different mechanics kind of lead to an idea that there is a uniqueness in the action taken. Likewise, when a thief tries to disarm a trap, it is a unique experience because the d100 is used instead. The existence of the different mechanics creates a 'meta-aesthetic' that the actions taken are different. The game promotes a 'meta-aesthetic' by enforcing different mechanical resolutions based on different actions.Now, In my personal experience, I don't see this as much in universal resolution mechanics. It feels more same to me because when I Turn Undead, in more modern games, I reach for the same die and execute the mechanic in the same way that I would an attack or a skill check or a saving throw or so on.I don't know if this is even close to what you are wanting to discuss. I hope I'm close and you take this as a sincere effort <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

Verification