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
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
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: 9302724" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Sadly, rule design based on what I call meta-aesthetics, e.g. rules that <em>feel nice</em> because they're symmetric or reaching an arbitrary line of simplicity (usually "limit things to X classes and no more" or similar) is widely popular despite not actually leading to better design outcomes.</p><p></p><p>We are compelled by design that <em>feels</em> like it is what it "should" be, much more than by design that has actually been tested and confirmed to actually fulfill the intent for which it was designed.</p><p></p><p>Hence why, even though I know the design value of useful consistency, I have also quoted Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Because the operative word there is "a <strong><em>foolish</em></strong> consistency." Any such effort, turning some subset of the meta-aesthetic goals into <em>the</em> purpose of design, necessarily leads to dysfunction and debility, as those things, originally noble, are "arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation." (CS Lewis, <em>The Abolition of Man</em>.)</p><p></p><p>Design that cares about meta-aesthetic concerns like brevity, simplicity, consistency, accessibility, etc., is not bad; indeed, I am committed to the hilt that design which blithely dismisses these things is necessarily <em>bad</em> design. But, ultimately, these are nice-to-haves. They are not the actual goal of design. The goal of design, of <em>any</em> design not just in games but in machines and laws and buildings and anything else devised by human arts, is to bring about the designer's intent <em>well,</em> to do or be exactly what was sought after. </p><p></p><p>Of course, the designer may find along the way that her intent was a poor one, and thus fulfilling it would be bad; that is not a knock against design, but rather against the unwise designer for choosing a goal that was not worthy. But just as architecture cannot tell you that it is better to design a school or a hospital than an abattoir or a gallows, only better and worse ways of designing any <em>given</em> building, or how it cannot tell you that wood is better than steel but can tell you whether a task can be fulfilled by one and not the other, so too with game design. It cannot tell you whether one design goal is better than another; it can only help you better realize a design goal you have already brought in yourself.</p><p></p><p>Letting meta-aesthetics <em>replace</em> this fundamental goal of game design, rather than taking their proper (and vital) place as guides to the real end thereof, harms the finished product. Like cooking a meal based <em>only</em> on how much color and vibrance it will have, regardless of flavor, nutrition, or indeed edibility. Like writing a novel based <em>only</em> on hammering home a political polemic, at the expense of entertainment, artistic beauty, or indeed basic readability. That the food we eat should (generally) look good is not a problem, and indeed color is a useful albeit imperfect proxy for other good things like nutritional value and flavor. To make color the <em>goal</em> of food, however, is to harm eating. That our works of fiction express ideas and beliefs is not in doubt, indeed, I think most readers can tell (and generally dislike) when a story is written with <em>no</em> beliefs or ideas underlying it, as the work suffers for this loss in most cases. But to turn, or should I say <em>reduce,</em> fiction into nothing more than a vehicle for ramming beliefs into the reader's head as hard as possible is to rob fiction of most (if not all!) of its virtue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9302724, member: 6790260"] Sadly, rule design based on what I call meta-aesthetics, e.g. rules that [I]feel nice[/I] because they're symmetric or reaching an arbitrary line of simplicity (usually "limit things to X classes and no more" or similar) is widely popular despite not actually leading to better design outcomes. We are compelled by design that [I]feels[/I] like it is what it "should" be, much more than by design that has actually been tested and confirmed to actually fulfill the intent for which it was designed. Hence why, even though I know the design value of useful consistency, I have also quoted Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Because the operative word there is "a [B][I]foolish[/I][/B] consistency." Any such effort, turning some subset of the meta-aesthetic goals into [I]the[/I] purpose of design, necessarily leads to dysfunction and debility, as those things, originally noble, are "arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation." (CS Lewis, [I]The Abolition of Man[/I].) Design that cares about meta-aesthetic concerns like brevity, simplicity, consistency, accessibility, etc., is not bad; indeed, I am committed to the hilt that design which blithely dismisses these things is necessarily [I]bad[/I] design. But, ultimately, these are nice-to-haves. They are not the actual goal of design. The goal of design, of [I]any[/I] design not just in games but in machines and laws and buildings and anything else devised by human arts, is to bring about the designer's intent [I]well,[/I] to do or be exactly what was sought after. Of course, the designer may find along the way that her intent was a poor one, and thus fulfilling it would be bad; that is not a knock against design, but rather against the unwise designer for choosing a goal that was not worthy. But just as architecture cannot tell you that it is better to design a school or a hospital than an abattoir or a gallows, only better and worse ways of designing any [I]given[/I] building, or how it cannot tell you that wood is better than steel but can tell you whether a task can be fulfilled by one and not the other, so too with game design. It cannot tell you whether one design goal is better than another; it can only help you better realize a design goal you have already brought in yourself. Letting meta-aesthetics [I]replace[/I] this fundamental goal of game design, rather than taking their proper (and vital) place as guides to the real end thereof, harms the finished product. Like cooking a meal based [I]only[/I] on how much color and vibrance it will have, regardless of flavor, nutrition, or indeed edibility. Like writing a novel based [I]only[/I] on hammering home a political polemic, at the expense of entertainment, artistic beauty, or indeed basic readability. That the food we eat should (generally) look good is not a problem, and indeed color is a useful albeit imperfect proxy for other good things like nutritional value and flavor. To make color the [I]goal[/I] of food, however, is to harm eating. That our works of fiction express ideas and beliefs is not in doubt, indeed, I think most readers can tell (and generally dislike) when a story is written with [I]no[/I] beliefs or ideas underlying it, as the work suffers for this loss in most cases. But to turn, or should I say [I]reduce,[/I] fiction into nothing more than a vehicle for ramming beliefs into the reader's head as hard as possible is to rob fiction of most (if not all!) of its virtue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
Top