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

[Snarf Zagyg]

It is true that your theory appeared to me to fall in the category of damning with faint praise. We seem to agree that 5E achieves broad appeal. But there is a strong sense - in your comparing it with CF - that you believe it achieves that broad appeal by compromising the quality of design. It might be that you are instead saying something about the players, but then you would seem to be denigrating their ability to discern good design. It lands in about the same place. If that is not your intent, then I will accept that on face value.

My point is that 5E achieves its broad appeal because of the high quality of its game design, and players choose it because they are capable of appreciating that.

Mmmm. Not exactly.

This is where we get into a slightly different area. A thing can be "high quality," and have "broad appeal," and still make compromises- in fact, I'd argue that making compromises is part of the broad appeal.

I think 5e is very well designed. But because it's not a niche product, it has to make compromises. To use one example that I think everyone can agree with ...

5e includes legacy components. It has to use "parts" (rules, lore) from older editions. If the game designers were designing from scratch, if they were making some "white room" best game ever, I'm guessing some of those would be ditched. Which ones- alignment? The six ability scores? The weird mishmash of classes? The half-orc? Who knows? One person's sacred cow is another person's hamburger.

The point of this is that part of the broad appeal of the game, part of the "popularity" is that they didn't remove the legacy. There is something for everyone (or for most people).

You can use this with many aspects of the game. To be clear- I really like 5e, and I think it's an incredibly tough thing to design for broad appeal. It's easy to design something when you're only designing for a small group, and don't have to worry about sales, or popularity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess you missed the part where I talked about customer satisfaction. Generally speaking "is falling apart" is not something that increases customer satisfaction.

As someone that brought that car, I was massively satisfied at that time (1st car meant freedom).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Death of the author.

You know, I have been feeling under the weather ....

I never realized how threatening that theory was until now!

 

[turnip_farmer]

You cannot consider technical proficiency to be quality? I don't understand this objection. If a film is out-of-focus, has very poor camera control, is poorly framed, but yet has an interesting story, I'm absolutely sure that it's going to be considered a failed film with a caveat that a better production would have suited the story and done better.

I don't, really. I know a few terms, and I've watched and paid attention to a number of films. Please stop trying to cast me as some kind of expert so that I fit into whatever bin you think I need to be in to dismiss my observations. If you can't refute the observations, attack the person, right?

That's not how food is usually judged, though, it's just a statement of your preferences in food. Food can be evaluated with objective standards. I mean, how you cook a steak is well defined in 5 categories (6 if you include uncooked, 7 or more if you include other preps like treating with acids). This are objectively defined, if a tad loosely (the exact transition from warm red center to hot red center, for instance (medium rare to medium, in other parlance) isn't strongly defined). This is a measure of quality -- a piece of steak specified to medium rare is of lesser quality if it is cooked to well-done. How you like your steak cooked is a matter of preference, but I can absolutely judge the quality of the cooking outside of your preferences.

For what it's worth, there is a big difference between technical proficiency and quality, I think.

Imagine someone's making some abstract painting. The artist is extremely good at painting, they have mastered the techniques they are working with, and they are able to produce exactly the effect they were going for.

Does the fact that the artist's technical skill produced exactly the outcome they hoped for automatically mean the painting is good? I would think no. If the artist's idea was stupid, his faithful realisation of that idea will also be stupid. And that's an inherently subjective judgement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course. But it does mean we can't rely on the lack of broad appeal of other well designed games as proof that well designed games can't achieve broad appeal!

Of course not.

 

[Aldarc]

Many people think Picasso was a genius. I remember going to an art gallery and one of the pieces of art on display was a piece of construction paper with a hole crudely cut into it to reveal a black piece of construction paper.

I don't think it's dismissive to state that I don't care for expressionist or modern art, people are free t like what they like. I just think "quality" is meaningless for many things.

I can judge the quality of Michelangelo based on his technical expertise and his David sculpture. Whether it's higher quality than Picasso's Guitar is subjective.

I think part of the issue is that many aren't equipped with either the knowledge or expertise themselves to make such a judgment about the quality or significance of a piece, though they likely can express a rudimentary sense of their preferences, whether as a like or dislike. Furthermore, art is very much a product of its time, with art often acting as a call and response to social and philosophic movements in society. Art often tries to provoke and challenge the predecessor generation. So sometimes the "genius" of a piece is lost on people over time, such as Fountain: aka the infamous upside down toilet bowl. But art pieces like Fountain are also important because they force us to consider what constitutes art. You can see, for example, a different side to Picasso in his early works that very much attest to his technical skills.

To do the comic book guy, most times in blind tests professional wine tasters fail to distinguish vintages. A few are the genuine thing, but most can't actually do the job they're supposedly experts at.

I think taste (the sense) is an area that's rife with preference loading and false standards.

I guess then that I made the mistake of trusting the summation of results given of the article.

 

[Oofta]

I think part of the issue is that many aren't equipped with either the knowledge or expertise themselves to make such a judgment about the quality or significance of a piece, though they likely can express a rudimentary sense of their preferences, whether as a like or dislike. Furthermore, art is very much a product of its time, with art often acting as a call and response to social and philosophic movements in society. Art often tries to provoke and challenge the predecessor generation. So sometimes the "genius" of a piece is lost on people over time, such as Fountain: aka the infamous upside down toilet bowl. But art pieces like Fountain are also important because they force us to consider what constitutes art. You can see, for example, a different side to Picasso in his early works that very much attest to his technical skills.

I think "quality" is in the art of the beholder. There was a story a while back about how someone left their glasses on the floor at an art gallery. People gathered around, took pictures, were discussing the "piece of art" in very serious whispers.

People see quality where they want to see it. Just because there are standards to judge something by, articles written, lectures given, pieces sold at auction for a gazillion dollars doesn't make it high quality. I don't care if your technique is genius, if you're creating crap it's still crap. Technically impressive crap. Just because I don't have the training to state my preferences in the "correct" terms or understand the evolution of visual representation doesn't change it's quality for me.

On the other hand, one person's crap is another person's revelatory masterpiece.

In any case, dead horses are not art and this particular horse is dead.

 

[Umbran]

I think taste (the sense) is an area that's rife with preference loading and false standards.

Fair point.

Before one sets about talking about what is, or is not, a "good product", one really should first set out what criteria are considered to indicate quality, and what are the measures of it.

To take McDonalds as an example - we say it isn't quality food. That's actually assuming a great many things. McDonalds is fast. It is affordable. It is reliable. It is readily available. These are all positive qualities. But the person who says it isn't quality food does not give high priority to these aspects of food service.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I think part of the issue is that many aren't equipped with either the knowledge or expertise themselves to make such a judgment about the quality or significance of a piece, though they likely can express a rudimentary sense of their preferences, whether as a like or dislike.

I think we are all capable of expressing detailed and specific senses of our preferences. My understanding of what I like is not rudimentary, regardless of what that preference is based on. You make it sound like gorillas trying to communicate by sign language.

 

[Maxperson]

You cannot consider technical proficiency to be quality? I don't understand this objection. If a film is out-of-focus, has very poor camera control, is poorly framed, but yet has an interesting story, I'm absolutely sure that it's going to be considered a failed film with a caveat that a better production would have suited the story and done better.

Sure you can, but quality is in the eye of the beholder. Poor writing, boring, etc. are also examples of quality. It all depends on what you are looking for personally. For some, the shaky camera control in the Blair Witch Project made the movie and was quality work. For others like me, we couldn't stand it and it was piss poor quality work.

If three people are looking for a vacuum cleaner, one might be be looking for part that last forever. Another might be looking for the one that best picks up dirt. And the third for the one that looks the best, regardless of how long it wears out or picks up dirt. All three have different metrics for quality and all are subjective.