D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough

[fearsomepirate]

This thread is like the Cheesecake Factory. It may not have the best arguments in it, but no matter what you want to argue about in it, the arguments going on are at least good enough to satisfy a wide variety of people.

 

[Campbell]

@Snarf Zagyg

Besides it's broad appeal and being at the center of a cultural zeitgeist what about Fifth Edition makes it so broadly flexible? What design features does it bring to the table that make it easy to satisfy such broad differences in play style? Do you have play reports that show these differences? What separates it from say Vampire the Masquerade (which was also broadly popular and part of a cultural zeitgeist)?

I'm just not seeing anything to back up your claims other than repetition. What in particular does it offer to bring together someone whose favorite game is Old School Essentials with someone else whose favorite game is Monsterhearts?

Aside: I'm not being critical when I say Fifth Edition is the result of remarkably focused design. That's high praise coming from me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This thread is like the Cheesecake Factory. It may not have the best arguments in it, but no matter what you want to argue about it, the arguments going on are at least good enough to satisfy a wide variety of people.

Brilliant!

 

[Aldarc]

How do you decide if an ingredient is higher quality? Steak is typically aged, most people prefer steak cooked less than I prefer. Some people enjoy eating fungus.

Sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that my presumption about your likely reaction to the proposed scenario is wrong nor have you given much indication to the contrary.

As to your question. How do you decide if an ingredient is higher quality? If we are talking about steak, then we would potentially be looking at things like the breed of cow, its living and diet conditions, the age of its slaughter, the value of its butchering production, whether artificial additives or chemicals were added to the meat (particularly meant to artificially extend the shelf-life), the quality of the cuts, what part of the cow the steak came from, the marbling on the steak, the smell, the packaging, the store conditions, the expiration date, etc. These are all potential metrics we can use for simply deciding which would a quality steak to cook for whatever purposes we may have. We may not have all of this information available, but if we cared about buying a high quality piece of meat, we likely would use what tools of discernment we had available. And part of that is also deciding what sort of meal we plan on buying that steak to cook. So our sense of quality will also be determined by what we are needing. But that doesn't mean that the quality of a steak is entirely subjective. It sometimes means that we don't know what we are looking for or what contributes to that quality beyond "it tastes good."

Likewise, people enjoy eating fungus, but a connoisseur of edible fungus can still help you identify what a high quality champignon, chanterelle, or shiitake mushroom looks like.

I don't think that ignorance of what makes a high quality steak somehow disproves that reasonable metrics for the quality of the steak exist.

I think 5E has issues but like most modern games it passes that standard. The rest of it? Call it "quality" if you want, to me it's just personal preference.

Your personal game preferences are valid.

 

[Maxperson]

For you, maybe. I used to rent all the Oscar winners and for me most of them were yawn-inducing boredom so bad that I didn't bother finishing them. But go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong and that your personal opinion is somehow superior.

"Quality" is personal preference dressed up as an objective standard.

This.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not a film student, nor have I ever taken a single film class.

My point is that your using terms to define quality based on technical standards.

... the cinematography is brilliant -- the framing, the movement, the blocking. The blocking is really nice, as, if you pay attention, the main character is often blocked off-center in the shots at the start of the film, and moves closer to being centered as the character moves closer to being centers. Subtle, but brilliant. The use of palette, how the main character deciphers black and white close up pictures into full color wide shots through action in the film -- man, I love this. This film is really well made in a lot of ways most people just won't notice or even care about, and I adore it. ...

You've obviously read up on the art of film making. Someone, subjectively, came up with some of those phrases and standards. Some of it is just your personal preference.

For me, TTRPGs are much like food. Does the food make you physically ill? Then it's poor quality. Beyond that? Personal preference. Can I read the current D&D books and do they make sense, are they consistent? Yes, for the most part (nothing's perfect). Beyond that? Personal preference.

Anyway, it's just my opinion. A high quality opinion in my judgement of course, but just an opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

So, yeah, if you're just going to use "I like it" as a measure of quality, then go ahead, just don't expect that to be given much weight. I like 5e, quite a lot, but I'm not going to substitute that for my evaluation of it's quality. Heck, I like Little Caesar's deep dish pizza, too. It's not quality at all.

That's all that happened originally. A bunch of people liked certain techniques and decided that what they liked was better "quality." Now you have learned about those things which have been determined to be "quality" and are trying to use it as some sort of objective measure of what makes a film good. It's not objective, though. It's just one side's "I like it" vs. the other side's "I like it."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg

Besides it's broad appeal and being at the center of a cultural zeitgeist what about Fifth Edition makes it so broadly flexible? What design features does it bring to the table that make it easy to satisfy such broad differences in play style? Do you have play reports that show these differences?

I will reiterate that, to me, this misses the point. Which is okay, because we are talking about different things.

IMO, your comment is similar to someone saying, "Sure, that Avengers: Endgame movie made a lot of money, and people really liked it ... but I need to understand why it was so popular, given that it does not satisfy the traditional criteria I apply for cinematography."

I appreciate that you are applying a specific analytic framework that you believe enhances your style of play. But when I see a statement start with, "Beside it's broad appeal ... what about Fifth Edition makes it so broadly flexible..." I don't know that there is a common ground for communication. It feels roughly akin to people saying, "Sure, I understand that Dua Lipa is broadly popular right now, but I'd rather concentrate on the way that people like me truly enjoy Opera, and how pop music isn't Opera."

Sometimes, people like what they like, and I respect the fact the people really, really like 5e. I also think it's great that it's bringing in a bunch of new gamers in, and some of them will end up trying other games as well. It's win-win for everyone!

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that my presumption about your likely reaction to the proposed scenario is wrong nor have you given much indication to the contrary.

As to your question. How do you decide if an ingredient is higher quality? If we are talking about steak, then we would potentially be looking at things like the breed of cow, its living and diet conditions, the age of its slaughter, the value of its butchering production, whether artificial additives or chemicals were added to the meat (particularly meant to artificially extend the shelf-life), the quality of the cuts, what part of the cow the steak came from, the marbling on the steak, the smell, the packaging, the store conditions, the expiration date, etc. These are all potential metrics we can use for simply deciding which would a quality steak to cook for whatever purposes we may have. We may not have all of this information available, but if we cared about buying a high quality piece of meat, we likely would use what tools of discernment we had available. And part of that is also deciding what sort of meal we plan on buying that steak to cook. So our sense of quality will also be determined by what we are needing. But that doesn't mean that the quality of a steak is entirely subjective. It sometimes means that we don't know what we are looking for or what contributes to that quality beyond "it tastes good."

Likewise, people enjoy eating fungus, but a connoisseur of edible fungus can still help you identify what a high quality champignon, chanterelle, or shiitake mushroom looks like.

I don't think that ignorance of what makes a high quality steak somehow disproves that reasonable metrics for the quality of the steak exist.


Your personal game preferences are valid.

The metrics were decided by someone who made a subjective classification of what "quality" means.

It's kind of like wine. Unless you are a trained wine taster, most people prefer moderately priced or even cheap wine. Their opinion changes when they see the price.

Quality is in the eye (and expectations) of the beholder.

 

[Campbell]

@Snarf Zygag

What I am saying is that is not popular because it satisfies disparate tastes, but because it satisfies a specific set of widely held expectations phenomenally well. The same way Call of Duty does or CSI does. Fast and the Furious is another good example.