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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 8112971" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I completely agree that it is good for designers to make informed decisions about what design aesthetics they wish to include in their games. Again, <em>ignoring</em> these things is a bad plan. My problem (and it's mostly directed at <em>fans</em>, and in particular <em>playtesters</em>) is when those decisions are NOT informed, but rather operate pretty much purely off of the expectation that a certain design aesthetic simply IS good design, not even needing to be defended because it is <em>obviously</em> good design.</p><p></p><p>A D&D game with a keyword-based rule system as labyrinthine as M:TG would be a great example of a design aesthetic that has been pursued to the detriment of play-experience. Likewise, a TTRPG system that legitimately DOES try to have a distinct rule for every possible situation a DM or player might encounter has taken the <em>comprehensiveness</em> aesthetic and turned it into an overweening obsession, rather than one consideration among many. This is why I said, for example, that "gamist"/"simulationist"/etc. doesn't really apply here, because these aesthetics can appear in literally any of those and can bend design out of shape <em>regarless</em> of which thing is being pursued.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Certainly not all. Like I said, even bolded, design aesthetics--seeking theory elegance, in the physics analogy--will always be an important consideration, and designers(/physicists) ignore it at their peril. But treating elegance as <em>the most important thing</em> seems to come up a LOT, particularly in playtest discussions, and this bothers me. Playtesting is, at least in part, about helping suss out all the questions, like design effectiveness, the game's message or what it communicates to the players, <em>and</em> aesthetics (both "direct" aesthetics like art and descriptive text, and "meta" aesthetics like comprehensiveness, conciseness, and centralization). I see these meta-aesthetics being elevated to the most important concern, bar none.</p><p></p><p>But yes, I quite like Dungeon World, it's one of the reason I run it despite generally favoring much crunchier games.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's certainly in the same ballpark.</p><p></p><p>My response would be that you have identified two different, mostly mutually-exclusive meta-aesthetics. I'd call them "unifiedness" and "distinctness." Fate is a game that is almost maximally unified, where there's very close to only <em>one</em> mechanic that really is used for nearly everything. And the thing is? I would completely agree that pursuing unified mechanics <em>purely because one considers them elegant</em>, is a bad idea! Even though I really like unified mechanics, <em>presuming</em> that unified mechanics are better than distinct mechanics is an error. And I'll give you an example of an argument I, myself, have made where I believe the concern I'm highlighting (putting the aesthetic before any question of function or message) <em>doesn't</em> apply.</p><p></p><p>Even though in some ways 3e moved to "totally" unified mechanics, by having almost all random numbers come from d20s, even that isn't totally unified. Damage dice are still other types, for example...but even the use of the d20 is not totally unified. Attack rolls, skill rolls, initiative rolls...all of these things are unified, they work the same way and benefit from the same kinds of things symmetrically. But one type of d20 roll--a very common one!--sticks out as different. <em>Saving throws</em>. Saving throws make a lot of sense for some people, but they also create some design wrinkles. 4e looked at that and said, "Well...mathematically, there's no difference between the <em>target</em> rolling a save, and the <em>caster</em> rolling to hit. Let's ditch spell saving throws and have <em>all</em> offensive abilities use hit rolls." (It's worth noting, 4e still had things <em>called</em> "saving throws," but they served an entirely different function.)</p><p></p><p>One might say, "Wait a minute there, Ezekiel. You just said doing things for meta-aesthetic reasons is a problem, yet now you support it?" But that <em>wasn't</em> the reason they chose to slay that particular sacred cow. The reason was that making spells use attack rolls the same way regular attacks do <em>opened new design space</em>. The 4e Warlord or Cleric did not need distinct abilities in order to benefit <em>both</em> their spell-using allies AND their weapon-using allies. A Warlord handing out an attack bonus, or extra damage on successful attacks, is just as beneficial to a Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Swordmage party as she is to a Hunter/Rogue/Avenger/Fighter party, because every time someone uses an offensive ability that isn't guaranteed to land, they make an attack roll and do attack damage when they succeed.</p><p></p><p>Mechanical distinctness can absolutely be valuable. Having different classes feature distinct mechanics, for example, is a pretty uncontroversial form of distinctness. But really high distinctness--where every mechanic works pretty differently--has some serious costs. TTRPGs have to compete with a lot of other leisure activities, which means that many players will make a "time invested vs fun gained" evaluation regularly. That doesn't mean distinctness is now <em>worthless</em>, but very very high distinctiveness may be too much for many modern players. Having thief skills be so different from any other skillful activity, for example, can be a real headache for some players. (I have known multiple players who legitimately couldn't retain their knowledge of how to do basic Dungeon World moves from one week to the next, even after a full year of playing the same character. Having extremely high distinctness, where nearly every name-able action has a unique mechanic, will drive those players away very quickly.)</p><p></p><p>And all of the above--both your post and my own words--are what I <strong>really want</strong> to see. Earnest, positive discussions about what "meta-aesthetics" one would like to see pursued <em>and why they should be</em>. What concerns me is people asserting an aesthetic without defense or discussion, and stating or implying that it <em>needs</em> no defense or discussion because it's just obviously Better Design. Whether it's mechanical distinctness, unified mechanics, keywording, centralization, <em>whatever</em>, I far too often see these meta-aesthetics simply assumed as gospel and projected onto <em>all possible rules structures</em>, no matter what consequences may result. I guess you could call it the "other side" of the sacred cow--that is, where a sacred cow is a structure preserved outside its original context, the thing I'm opposing is <em>inserting</em> structures regardless of context. Golden calves, perhaps?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8112971, member: 6790260"] I completely agree that it is good for designers to make informed decisions about what design aesthetics they wish to include in their games. Again, [I]ignoring[/I] these things is a bad plan. My problem (and it's mostly directed at [I]fans[/I], and in particular [I]playtesters[/I]) is when those decisions are NOT informed, but rather operate pretty much purely off of the expectation that a certain design aesthetic simply IS good design, not even needing to be defended because it is [I]obviously[/I] good design. A D&D game with a keyword-based rule system as labyrinthine as M:TG would be a great example of a design aesthetic that has been pursued to the detriment of play-experience. Likewise, a TTRPG system that legitimately DOES try to have a distinct rule for every possible situation a DM or player might encounter has taken the [I]comprehensiveness[/I] aesthetic and turned it into an overweening obsession, rather than one consideration among many. This is why I said, for example, that "gamist"/"simulationist"/etc. doesn't really apply here, because these aesthetics can appear in literally any of those and can bend design out of shape [I]regarless[/I] of which thing is being pursued. Certainly not all. Like I said, even bolded, design aesthetics--seeking theory elegance, in the physics analogy--will always be an important consideration, and designers(/physicists) ignore it at their peril. But treating elegance as [I]the most important thing[/I] seems to come up a LOT, particularly in playtest discussions, and this bothers me. Playtesting is, at least in part, about helping suss out all the questions, like design effectiveness, the game's message or what it communicates to the players, [I]and[/I] aesthetics (both "direct" aesthetics like art and descriptive text, and "meta" aesthetics like comprehensiveness, conciseness, and centralization). I see these meta-aesthetics being elevated to the most important concern, bar none. But yes, I quite like Dungeon World, it's one of the reason I run it despite generally favoring much crunchier games. It's certainly in the same ballpark. My response would be that you have identified two different, mostly mutually-exclusive meta-aesthetics. I'd call them "unifiedness" and "distinctness." Fate is a game that is almost maximally unified, where there's very close to only [I]one[/I] mechanic that really is used for nearly everything. And the thing is? I would completely agree that pursuing unified mechanics [I]purely because one considers them elegant[/I], is a bad idea! Even though I really like unified mechanics, [I]presuming[/I] that unified mechanics are better than distinct mechanics is an error. And I'll give you an example of an argument I, myself, have made where I believe the concern I'm highlighting (putting the aesthetic before any question of function or message) [I]doesn't[/I] apply. Even though in some ways 3e moved to "totally" unified mechanics, by having almost all random numbers come from d20s, even that isn't totally unified. Damage dice are still other types, for example...but even the use of the d20 is not totally unified. Attack rolls, skill rolls, initiative rolls...all of these things are unified, they work the same way and benefit from the same kinds of things symmetrically. But one type of d20 roll--a very common one!--sticks out as different. [I]Saving throws[/I]. Saving throws make a lot of sense for some people, but they also create some design wrinkles. 4e looked at that and said, "Well...mathematically, there's no difference between the [I]target[/I] rolling a save, and the [I]caster[/I] rolling to hit. Let's ditch spell saving throws and have [I]all[/I] offensive abilities use hit rolls." (It's worth noting, 4e still had things [I]called[/I] "saving throws," but they served an entirely different function.) One might say, "Wait a minute there, Ezekiel. You just said doing things for meta-aesthetic reasons is a problem, yet now you support it?" But that [I]wasn't[/I] the reason they chose to slay that particular sacred cow. The reason was that making spells use attack rolls the same way regular attacks do [I]opened new design space[/I]. The 4e Warlord or Cleric did not need distinct abilities in order to benefit [I]both[/I] their spell-using allies AND their weapon-using allies. A Warlord handing out an attack bonus, or extra damage on successful attacks, is just as beneficial to a Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Swordmage party as she is to a Hunter/Rogue/Avenger/Fighter party, because every time someone uses an offensive ability that isn't guaranteed to land, they make an attack roll and do attack damage when they succeed. Mechanical distinctness can absolutely be valuable. Having different classes feature distinct mechanics, for example, is a pretty uncontroversial form of distinctness. But really high distinctness--where every mechanic works pretty differently--has some serious costs. TTRPGs have to compete with a lot of other leisure activities, which means that many players will make a "time invested vs fun gained" evaluation regularly. That doesn't mean distinctness is now [I]worthless[/I], but very very high distinctiveness may be too much for many modern players. Having thief skills be so different from any other skillful activity, for example, can be a real headache for some players. (I have known multiple players who legitimately couldn't retain their knowledge of how to do basic Dungeon World moves from one week to the next, even after a full year of playing the same character. Having extremely high distinctness, where nearly every name-able action has a unique mechanic, will drive those players away very quickly.) And all of the above--both your post and my own words--are what I [B]really want[/B][I] [/I]to see. Earnest, positive discussions about what "meta-aesthetics" one would like to see pursued [I]and why they should be[/I]. What concerns me is people asserting an aesthetic without defense or discussion, and stating or implying that it [I]needs[/I] no defense or discussion because it's just obviously Better Design. Whether it's mechanical distinctness, unified mechanics, keywording, centralization, [I]whatever[/I], I far too often see these meta-aesthetics simply assumed as gospel and projected onto [I]all possible rules structures[/I], no matter what consequences may result. I guess you could call it the "other side" of the sacred cow--that is, where a sacred cow is a structure preserved outside its original context, the thing I'm opposing is [I]inserting[/I] structures regardless of context. Golden calves, perhaps? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top