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

[Maxperson]

Wait, the temperature and color of a cooked steak is a judgement call?

Again, you can objectively determine this. And you can have a preference for which you like. And, you can then judge the quality of the preparation of your steak by how well the objective measure of temperature and color match your request. If I ask for medium rare, and get well done, I can both determine this objectively, and also objectively say that the preparation is of poor quality.

No. You might prefer a different temperature and color than I do. One will be higher quality for you, the other higher quality for me. Can we objectively determine temperature and quality? Yes. Which is the best quality is subjective.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Then I think that the person did well, whether intentionally or not, in creating art in a pre-existing space for people to potentially think of glasses as art.

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.

The American anti-intellectualist vibe is strong here. I'm puzzled as to the basis or criteria you are using to determine that some piece of art is "crap." Do you just pull that opinion out of your own rear? So if people are only seeing quality where they want to see it, does that apply to you? If not, does that mean you are above other people in that regard? That your beholder's eye is more acute in discerning actual art? Does that mean that you can't be wrong about whether what you have determined to be crap is actually crap at all? You seem to be declaring that the creation of crap is still crap as if it has some sort of objective truth in reality independent of the subjective judgment thereof. What's up with that?

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.

Sign language is a valid form of intelligible speech, but I'm afraid may have to resort to unintelligible means lest we be accused of being snobs for being able to articulate those preferences with any coherent precision.

 

[Oofta]

Then I think that the person did well, whether intentionally or not, in creating art in a pre-existing space for people to potentially think of glasses as art.


The American anti-intellectualist vibe is strong here. I'm puzzled as to the basis or criteria you are using to determine that some piece of art is "crap." Do you just pull that opinion out of your own rear? So if people are only seeing quality where they want to see it, does that apply to you? If not, does that mean you are above other people in that regard? That your beholder's eye is more acute in discerning actual art? Does that mean that you can't be wrong about whether what you have determined to be crap is actually crap at all? You seem to be declaring that the creation of crap is still crap as if it has some sort of objective truth in reality independent of the subjective judgment thereof. What's up with that?


Sign language is a valid form of intelligible speech, but I'm afraid may have to resort to unintelligible means lest we be accused of being snobs for being able to articulate those preferences with any coherent precision.

If thinking that people telling each other how amazing they are for their refined tastes as an indication that they are "better" than others is anti-intellectualism then guilty as charged.

If you enjoy critiquing art, more power to you. I do appreciate the old masters, I marvel at some artwork. Just not the same as you. I don't think people who enjoy modern art are snobs because they enjoy modern art. They're snobs because the stick their nose up so high that they'll drown in a rainstorm because of how superior they believe they are.

But no. I can't be wrong on what my subjective opinion is. That's all that many claims of "quality" are. A fully loaded Ford F150 is a luxurious pickup and high quality to some. To me? It's a luxurious gas guzzler that has strayed so far from it's utility workhorse that I grew up with on the farm to be practically unrecognizable.

There are some objective categories of quality. A Toyota Yaris is better built, higher quality vehicle than a Yugo. Is it a higher quality vehicle than a 1960's Roll's Royce Silver Cloud? That's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[turnip_farmer]

A Toyota Yaris is better built, higher quality vehicle than a Yugo.

Although, if (when) your Yugo breaks down, you can fix it yourself. If your Yaris breaks down, you probably need someone with professional experience and tools to help. There are different ways to measure quality, and design always involves tradeoffs between them.

 

[Aldarc]

If thinking that people telling each other how amazing they are for their refined tastes as an indication that they are "better" than others is anti-intellectualism then guilty as charged.

I don't think anyone in this thread has made anything approximating this resentful assertion.

If you enjoy critiquing art, more power to you. I do appreciate the old masters, I marvel at some artwork. Just not the same as you. I don't think people who enjoy modern art are snobs because they enjoy modern art. They're snobs because the stick their nose up so high that they'll drown in a rainstorm because of how superior they believe they are.

What I find fascinating about your phrasing is that you did not choose to say "They're snobs when/if they stick their nose up so high..." but, rather, you say here that "They're snobs because the [sic] their nose up so high..." as if this snobbish attitude of superiority was nevertheless a common characteristic of people who like modern art. Either way, people who like modern art have been convicted as guilty of being snobs.

I will fully admit that I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of art museums. I know that I personally lack any formal education in art history or art itself. I would much rather go to a Natural History Museum over an Art Museum. And I too was highly skeptical and mocking at the value of art, particularly modern art. ("How is this art?") However, I remember that my first unexpected emotional reaction to art came with a Picasso piece. It wasn't one of his more famous pieces, and I always struggle to remember the name. It was a drawing depicting a knight on horse, of which he has a fair number of them. The left side of the drawing was sketched out in great detail but as your eyesight moved further to the right, it became less detailed and more abstracted. I had just started working on my thesis at the time, but man did that picture hit me hard. I felt an "oh frak the rest as long as its done!" attitude that resonated in a meaningful way to me in that moment. It was unexpected, particularly as I had dismissed Picasso. So I do credit Picasso and this art piece in particular for challenging me to revaluate my still evolving views on art. My knowledge of art is still mostly non-existent, but I gained a growing appreciation for it.

What's interesting is that a number of people on this forum (myself included) have expressed a similar experience of skepticism in regards to non-mainstream TTRPGs - what TTRPGs are, what they can be, how can/should be played, etc. - after being challenged by people with knowledge of these non-mainstream games. It doesn't mean that these other games are inherently of a higher quality than D&D, but simply that they can expand our appreciation of TTRPGs and our experiences thereof. Sometimes reflecting on our own negative reactions can help us identify our own biases and preferences with greater clarity than without those experiences, which I always find insightful.

 

[Oofta]

Although, if (when) your Yugo breaks down, you can fix it yourself. If your Yaris breaks down, you probably need someone with professional experience and tools to help. There are different ways to measure quality, and design always involves tradeoffs between them.

Good point. I once rebuilt a Pinto engine and replaced the overhead camshaft*. My dad kept a tractor from the 50s running because it was still useful and he could keep it running. There's actually a huge debate nowadays because modern manufacturers want to make it illegal for farmers to work on their own equipment.

*I only had 2 bolts leftover when I was done too.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think anyone in this thread has made anything approximating this resentful assertion.


What I find fascinating about your phrasing is that you did not choose to say "They're snobs when/if they stick their nose up so high..." but, rather, you say here that "They're snobs because the [sic] their nose up so high..." as if this snobbish attitude of superiority was nevertheless a common characteristic of people who like modern art. Either way, people who like modern art have been convicted as guilty of being snobs.

I will fully admit that I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of art museums. I know that I personally lack any formal education in art history or art itself. I would much rather go to a Natural History Museum over an Art Museum. And I too was highly skeptical and mocking at the value of art, particularly modern art. ("How is this art?") However, I remember that my first unexpected emotional reaction to art came with a Picasso piece. It wasn't one of his more famous pieces, and I always struggle to remember the name. It was a drawing depicting a knight on horse, of which he has a fair number of them. The left side of the drawing was sketched out in great detail but as your eyesight moved further to the right, it became less detailed and more abstracted. I had just started working on my thesis at the time, but man did that picture hit me hard. I felt an "oh frak the rest as long as its done!" attitude that resonated in a meaningful way to me in that moment. It was unexpected, particularly as I had dismissed Picasso. So I do credit Picasso and this art piece in particular for challenging me to revaluate my still evolving views on art. My knowledge of art is still mostly non-existent, but I gained a growing appreciation for it.

What's interesting is that a number of people on this forum (myself included) have expressed a similar experience of skepticism in regards to non-mainstream TTRPGs - what TTRPGs are, what they can be, how can/should be played, etc. - after being challenged by people with knowledge of these non-mainstream games. It doesn't mean that these other games are inherently of a higher quality than D&D, but simply that they can expand our appreciation of TTRPGs and our experiences thereof. Sometimes reflecting on our own negative reactions can help us identify our own biases and preferences with greater clarity than without those experiences, which I always find insightful.

I think you're reading a lot into my post. Someone can appreciate things that I don't and not be a snob. That was the whole point.

I don't see why you see the need to twist my words around, but I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[MGibster]

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.

One of the things I liked about Roger Ebert was that he was pretty good about judging movies based on what the creators were trying to accomplish. In 1980, he gave Airplane a good review and the biblical comedy Wholly Moses a negative review even though he thought the latter was smarter than the former. Why? Because Airplane succeeded where Wholly Moses failed, it made him laugh.

Dungeons & Dragons immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions.

Do the rules lend itself to this style of game play? Yeah. I'd say the designers of 5th edition pretty much nailed it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One of the things I liked about Roger Ebert was that he was pretty good about judging movies based on what the creators were trying to accomplish. In 1980, he gave Airplane a good review and the biblical comedy Wholly Moses a negative review even though he thought the latter was smarter than the former. Why? Because Airplane succeeded where Wholly Moses failed, it made him laugh.



Do the rules lend itself to this style of game play? Yeah. I'd say the designers of 5th edition pretty much nailed it.

Yup, I earlier pointed to this kind of 'does the game do what it says on the tin' as a non-preference based measure of quality.

 

[Umbran]

Correct, it also doesn't establish it is of high quality.

So, what does?