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="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8117536" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p>I wasn't even aware of the new issues. The thoughts I had came from how terms like "natural attacks" and "unarmed..." function in inconsistent ways in D&D.</p><p></p><p>I do not believe that using "natural language" is inherently bad (and would personally lead toward it being somewhat good). However, even a "natural language" set of rules would need to define common terms so as to facilitate a common understanding between author and audience. I would posit that (in some way) even terms such as "elf" and "dwarf" have a common understanding in D&D and are part of why the brand persists. (I would additionally posit that too many changes to the game which fundamentally undercut the shared understanding of what those established terms mean have a net negative influence on the shared experience.)</p><p></p><p>I think that, overall, I agree with your general view. However, I am of the impression that part of D&D's "natural language" issue is two part: 1) the game is written in a way which does not consistently use natural language, and 2) there is (in my view) something of a disconnect between how the people designing the game see the game versus how the people playing the game see the game.</p><p></p><p>For what it's worth, I felt that 4th Edition's design was very aesthetically pleasing. I have a lot of complaints about 4E, but the ease of understanding the rules is/was never one of them. Though, I might argue that 4E sometimes went too heavy in the direction of defining things through keywords and doing so often came full circle back around to creating broken parts of a game born of language being used in strange ways.</p><p></p><p>I think there are a lot of commonalities between issues with 4th's rules and 5th's rules, in regards to terms being used in inconsistent or ambiguous ways; the two editions simply present the terms in different formats.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8117536, member: 58416"] I wasn't even aware of the new issues. The thoughts I had came from how terms like "natural attacks" and "unarmed..." function in inconsistent ways in D&D. I do not believe that using "natural language" is inherently bad (and would personally lead toward it being somewhat good). However, even a "natural language" set of rules would need to define common terms so as to facilitate a common understanding between author and audience. I would posit that (in some way) even terms such as "elf" and "dwarf" have a common understanding in D&D and are part of why the brand persists. (I would additionally posit that too many changes to the game which fundamentally undercut the shared understanding of what those established terms mean have a net negative influence on the shared experience.) I think that, overall, I agree with your general view. However, I am of the impression that part of D&D's "natural language" issue is two part: 1) the game is written in a way which does not consistently use natural language, and 2) there is (in my view) something of a disconnect between how the people designing the game see the game versus how the people playing the game see the game. For what it's worth, I felt that 4th Edition's design was very aesthetically pleasing. I have a lot of complaints about 4E, but the ease of understanding the rules is/was never one of them. Though, I might argue that 4E sometimes went too heavy in the direction of defining things through keywords and doing so often came full circle back around to creating broken parts of a game born of language being used in strange ways. I think there are a lot of commonalities between issues with 4th's rules and 5th's rules, in regards to terms being used in inconsistent or ambiguous ways; the two editions simply present the terms in different formats. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top