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: 8117505" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>See, I agree with you. But many who have spoken in 5e's defense on this subject insist that the "natural language" concept, which the designers <em>did</em> reference while the game was being designed, is alive, well, and unequivocally good for the game.</p><p></p><p>My real argument on this specific subject (a narrow application of the overall topic) is that people have pursued a meta-aesthetic--"natural language"--by using language <em>that sounded natural to them at the time</em>. But what is natural in one context may be highly unnatural in another*...or may sound natural to one person and unnatural to another. That's <em>why</em> we develop precise terms: because naturalness is a constantly-moving target, <em>as it should be</em>, while clarity and specificity are far less so. But because it's so compelling to conceive of a game that you can just <em>understand</em> because everything is written and described with natural, common-use words, people were willing to throw most other considerations out the window. And we are now left with melee spell attacks with a target of "self" and "melee weapon attacks need not actually have any weapons, and are different from melee-weapon attacks," or the confusion over whether you <em>have</em> an Action and a Bonus Action or simply <em>can take</em> an Action and a Bonus Action, etc.</p><p></p><p>*Consider that saying, "I love <em>all</em> people" is a heartwarming and affirmative message when said in a conversation about, say, politics and religion, but an <em>incredibly hurtful</em> thing to say when your spouse asks you in a distraught voice, "Do you love me?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8117505, member: 6790260"] See, I agree with you. But many who have spoken in 5e's defense on this subject insist that the "natural language" concept, which the designers [I]did[/I] reference while the game was being designed, is alive, well, and unequivocally good for the game. My real argument on this specific subject (a narrow application of the overall topic) is that people have pursued a meta-aesthetic--"natural language"--by using language [I]that sounded natural to them at the time[/I]. But what is natural in one context may be highly unnatural in another*...or may sound natural to one person and unnatural to another. That's [I]why[/I] we develop precise terms: because naturalness is a constantly-moving target, [I]as it should be[/I], while clarity and specificity are far less so. But because it's so compelling to conceive of a game that you can just [I]understand[/I] because everything is written and described with natural, common-use words, people were willing to throw most other considerations out the window. And we are now left with melee spell attacks with a target of "self" and "melee weapon attacks need not actually have any weapons, and are different from melee-weapon attacks," or the confusion over whether you [I]have[/I] an Action and a Bonus Action or simply [I]can take[/I] an Action and a Bonus Action, etc. *Consider that saying, "I love [I]all[/I] people" is a heartwarming and affirmative message when said in a conversation about, say, politics and religion, but an [I]incredibly hurtful[/I] thing to say when your spouse asks you in a distraught voice, "Do you love me?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top