Aesthetics vs. Believability/ Usefulness

[Altrunchen]

Foremost, Architecture is art and a science, just like how Cartography is. There are ones that go for function, and plausibility, and others go for the outlandish, and artistic (At times - that pockmarked building is just weird.)
And getting an equilibrium is hard, it's easier to make something so useful and solid that it is beautiful, and to make something so beautiful it works, but it's hard to make something that both works, and is beautiful.



Not to throw magic around, but most elves in settings have magic, or don't live in tree houses at all, but rather live in the woods as a hunter gatherer who sleeps in trees without houses. Said magic could enhance the trees, and stop most fires from happening on the tree.



Inferiority complex, they feel small, and so they build big. And why compete in the above ground with a massive crap ton of other races vying for the above lands, when you could have one entrance to an entire underground nation self sustained by mushrooms and underground water? If you add under-dark into the equation, that's also another reason to build in the ground - so you can have access to all the exotic meat, plants, and wonders of that place.
You're also mistaken about earthquakes, people are much safer below the ground during an earthquake (I'm talking about more than just a basement.) people in mines don't feel earthquakes at all, and if they do they're minutely small, and if tree's fell because of earthquakes that easily, there wouldn't be alot of forestry would they? These things are natural, and can handle themselves from disasters - in that way, they make perfect shelters at times.



I completely agree with you here - minus traps and secret passages - I don't like dungeons that do that unless they have a good reason. There're secret passages and traps in dungeons in real life, it isn't that far fetched, really. Fantasy might be taking it a bit over what would be considered realistic but it is fantasy. Look at the pyramids for example, they have alot of secret passages and traps, to protect something - their pharaoh. I completely agree about the orcs though, I try to never do that in my dungeons unless I absolutely have to.

Admittedly I was sounding a bit closed-minded in my op. I will further admit that my reasoning wasn't exactly well...reasonable. I suppose my real gripe was with myself in that I tend to overthink my own projects to the point that I criticzie myself and my own styles so much that I tend to second-guess myself far too much.

And I have indeed heard that caves and being underground in general is actually quite a safe locale during an earthquake. I suppose if you think about something enough you can find a reason to do it and for it make sense. Somethign I obviously wasn't doing too much of.

For what it's worth, I think you might be forgetting one crucial part of the equation: history. Most buildings in the world today, and most buildings that have ever been created, were not designed. People build what they need, when they need it; it was only the rich and powerful who tended to add embellishment and design to their structures. Thus, a simple rectangular house - possibly only one room - is not only a plausible design for a building, I'd wager it's also the most common historically.

The key factor, though, is that the rectangle might be extended at some point, based on needs and circumstances: a new baby in the family? Add an extra room. A new tenant who makes pots? A kiln/workshop might appear. Through processes like these buildings can evolve over time. It is relatively rare that a structure will be demolished when use changes, as it is so much cheaper to keep what is already there. The interesting thing about this process is that the building form does follow function, but the function changes, and so the building becomes less and less coherent.

So my advice to you: design your buildings so they look undesigned.

Another piece of advice (for all mapmakers): what looks boring on a sheet of paper (a rectangle, a grid) would not necessarily be so in reality. The addition of doors and windows, brickwork, furniture etc would obscure the simplicity of layout, as well as making the place look 'lived in'. That, I think, is why isometric drawings/maps are so popular here on CG.

I suppose so. Isometric maps definitely let the art and beauty of the architecture shine. My old issue, though, is that it can feel well...gamey and abstract after a while. And while that isn't really a weakness, it just makes me feel like the map could be more than it is.

Oh, one thing I forgot to add is the golden ratio, so most houses wouldn't be just square.
Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose the word "rectalinear" would have been a better choice of words. Thanks. >.<

Featureless boxes of glass, with every floor of the box a set of rigid white corridors, each indistinguishable from the next. It's not a terribly livable design for humans, even if it does appeal to a small segment of the population. Human memory is associative, meaning that you need a context in which to know things. Variations in form and style between the floors of a build and between buildings themselves helps members of the community to navigate efficiently. If everything looks the same, most of the population will get lost fairly quickly.

And I've seen depressing examples of this with Soviet architecture with blocks and blocks of buildings that all look the same. The hard part about mapping this sort of thing out is making these kinds of interpretations of space when in reality it would have been made by hundreds of people over the years.

The whole "lots of intelligent races so that it's OK to kill non-humans instead of humans" argument never quite works for me. To me, having different races requires magic or something indistinguishable from it.

Why would elfies live in the treeses? Perhaps they share in the life energy of the trees. Perhaps the secretions of the trees enable their breeding behaviors. Perhaps they simply like the sounds of the leaves. Is it more efficient for them to have a different lifestyle? Maybe. There may be whole groups of elfies out there that are house-living, dirt-grubbing critters distinguishable from other races only by the very thin veneer of pointy ears.

Why woould a dwarf live underground? It's usually associated with their creation myths. It's where they feel comfortable. Maybe they do like open spaces, but the sight of the sun and stars terrifies them at a level few can tolerate. Maybe tall galleries are much, much easier to ventilate due to the use of convection to move air around but without having to feel the breeze.

I do agree that most dungeons seem to be just a random collection of things stuck together. More precisely, they are a collection of elements strung together to provide the PCs with a challenge first and foremost, and any other elements are secondary. Very few dungeons have good ventilation, a good food and water supply for all of the inhabitants, and a good sewage system. But most people don't care because it's irrelevant to the problem they're trying to solve (have a good time). Fantastic races and unrealistic settings are the norm because they don't want to role-play the exciting "shuffle the cards, deal out hands, and try to put together matching sets of colors" game over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

My experience is that a whole lot of folks don't prefer to be running or playing with a clockwork simulation. Those folks that do, well we usually call them "engineers."

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you mean to say that most people don't want to think too much about a game and want something simple and enjoyable?

I have a similar reaction to postmodernism in architecture. Sure, deconstructing architecture in specific and art in general is useful, but I don't really think we need 60 years worth of making things wrong just to prove that tradition has no hold on us. I think a lot of buildings should be designed that should never be built. The Denver Art Museum is another good example of a ridiculous design that has a significant negative impact on its usability. They've replaced the roof at least twice, and at great cost because of the odd materials and shape. There seems to be some kind of notion that art is only good if it's "innovative," but innovation isn't about simply doing something that hasn't been done before. It can't be forced that way; when you try it just comes across as pretentious. In my not-at-all humble opinion, of course.

I do somewhat disagree with you concerning Falling Water. True, you aren't going to have manufactured goods going into it, but what you will have are careful and proficient crafters maintaining it. It will be expensive, but anyone who can afford to own Falling Water in the first place has plenty of money. I would actually like to see a lot more of that kind of work in the world—products that depend upon and contribute to a small economy rather than a gigantic one—although not on that particular scale. On the other hand, that particular house has a big longevity problem. Between the water and the trees, its days are numbered, even leaving aside the structural problems it's had since day one.

In my opinion, good design is functional as well as beautiful. A rule should not be broken for the sake of breaking rules but because the rule is standing in the way of better design, and the consequences of breaking that rule need to be thoroughly understood and compensated for.

I very much like your ending point there. "A rule should not be broken for the sake of breaking rules but because the rule is standing in the way of better design, and the consequences of breaking that rule need to be thoroughly understood and compensated for." I could not agree more with you there.

I'd first point out something about the "bad" examples you give: I've seen pictures of the outside, but I've never actually been inside any of them. Have you been into the Stata Center, or Simmons Hall, or Fallingwater? If you have and they're terrible inside, then I guess that's that; but I've been into a lot of buildings that look boring on the outside but are still barely functional inside. It's certainly possible to trade off aesthetics with functionality, but it's not necessary. You have to use custom furniture in Fallingwater ... but just because it's harder to replace, does that mean you shouldn't use an eminently comfortable chair that fits in perfectly with its surroundings, slides under the table like they were meant to be together (they were), and is beautiful to boot? The Stata Center look strange from the outside, but floor plans look pretty normal on the inside - rooms are rectangular, corridors just bend at angles slightly different from 90 degrees.

As to your complaints about fantasy worlds, I have to point out that we create fantasy worlds to scratch different itches. Do we aim for verisimilitude, for a world that looks enough like our own that the players can project their expectations of real-world actions faithfully onto the conworld? Do we aim for aesthetics, try to create a world that is strange and beautiful and wondrous? Do we aim for a reflective world, through which we can explore bigger issues? And I'm sure there's other considerations to take into account.

So, from your post, elves living in trees. From a functional viewpoint, this is a bizarre idea: it's not for nothing that hardly any societies throughout history, and none past the stone age, have lived in trees. It's hard, it's dangerous, and you gain hardly any advantage against things smarter than wild animals. If the players expect their real-world logic to work in the fantasy world, they'll immediately notice the same drawbacks you did and burn the forest down rather than besiege the elves. From an aesthetic viewpoint, though, it might make more sense: elves aren't human, they're something strange and wondrous, they're closer to nature and live in tree-cities built of gossamer and fog! This might also work from a reflective viewpoint; maybe the GM is using these elves to explore environmental or alienation-from-nature themes in the world building.

The explanations traditionally given for "but why?" (like "Magic!") are usually justifications of choices made for aesthetic reasons; and this isn't a bad thing! It lets the players experience something built for aesthetic or reflective reasons and still have some idea of how things will work from a functional perspective. It makes players push their willing suspension of disbelief a little further; and, while it may be a little too far for a player expecting hard verisimilitude, it might not be too far if the players are open to more aesthetics or reflection on larger themes.

tl;dr: You can have aesthetics, and functionality, too. But as long as your audience is okay with it, you can give up some of one for some of the other.

You're right. I do lack in personal experience to make these sorts of broad judgements. I was being a bit too opinionated and bombastic I suppose. And you make an excellent point in that, ultimately, map design should provide for the players and not for one's own satisfaction. Otherwise why in the world are we Dmming anything at all? I guess I was being a bit self-centered.

[waldronate]

And I've seen depressing examples of this with Soviet architecture with blocks and blocks of buildings that all look the same. The hard part about mapping this sort of thing out is making these kinds of interpretations of space when in reality it would have been made by hundreds of people over the years.

Blocks of mass-produced identical buildings are the pinnacle of industrial development. They are very cost-efficient to make and almost universally a failure because they assume that humans are mass-produced identical units with identical wants and needs.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you mean to say that most people don't want to think too much about a game and want something simple and enjoyable?

That's a good first approximation, yes. I spend much of my waking time dealing with certain types of interpersonal and technical challenges at work in order to earn money to pay bills. I rarely want to do more of that sort of thing on my leisure time. When I get to game, I want to engage in straightforward activities that use the skills I've selected for my character and I don't try to analyze if the dungeon's sewer has a proper slope for good drainage or if the water supply has sufficient flow to avoid stagnation or if the fantastic critters that I'm there to kill and loot should would be justified in picketing outside of the chambers of parliament to protest the violations of their civil rights and how they deserve protection as a minority class. I want to enjoy myself and put aside my worries for a while.

Being able to use my understanding of how the "real world" operates is nice. It's useful to be able to apply the notion that fluids flow downhill, even if that sort of behavior would fill up the local Underdark in next to no time. I like the idea of knowing that fires will consume things, even if I can't actually cause 40 foot diameter balls of fire to appear and set everything only in that area on fire while leaving the things next to it unscathed.

Suspension of disbelief is critical for most entertainment activities. Requiring that everything and everyone operate according to exactly one standard of efficiency kills the sense of wonder needed for enjoying a lot of the world. Silly-looking and impractical buildings are central to lots of stories. Massive delvings that would take a thousand years to dig are also central to lots of stories.

Peculiar architecture in the real world helps people to remember a place. The opera house in Sydney is a seriously silly-looking building. So's the Eiffel tower in Paris, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, the rock-cut churches in Lalibela, Ethiopia, and even the pyramids in Egypt. But each of those places is fairly well-known because of their iconic architecture, not because of the uninteresting and more efficient buildings nearby.

Modern architects are desperate for their works to be iconic, and are getting increasingly desperate in their works. Is this trend a good thing? It depends on what you're trying to optimize for and how much you're willing to pay for it.