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

[fearsomepirate]

Of course they’re not. As an aggregate they might be a measure of popularity, but that’s an entirely different thing. Holiday Inn is not higher quality than the Ritz, and to suggest so would be absurd.

Different price points.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Sure, but that "high quality" is decided by preference for aspects of her work. There is no objectivity to that "high quality" standard. If in 100 years someone makes frames 10x better and you compare the two, the woman who you are using will be ranked at mid or low quality work. If quality were objective, that couldn't happen.

None of that contradicts anything I said. Yes, "high quality" is relative, and new things can exceed old things. A high quality computer display from 1987 isn't much today.

 

[Maxperson]

None of that contradicts anything I said. Yes, "high quality" is relative, and new things can exceed old things. A high quality computer display from 1987 isn't much today.

Quality is subjective. What you base that subjective opinion on can be objective.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Quality is subjective. What you base that subjective opinion on can be objective.

Yes, e.g., the horsepower and fuel efficiency of a motor can be measured objectively, but what impressed consumers 35 years ago is disappointing today. This is what the "time" arrow on the Kano model of quality is referring to. Over time, things that make something "high quality" become baseline expectations. ("Wow! This hotel room has hot water!" Big deal in 1910.)

With something like an RPG, I wouldn't work too hard to try to shoehorn everything into one of these three arrows, but it's still a helpful starting point to think about quality.

You don't want your customers to bring out their blue bow ties. You want them in pink bow ties.

 

[Blue Orange]

Leaving aside the comparison of art critics to history's worst dictators...

Isn't one of the issues with D&D 5e network effects? I can download and play an obscure indie game on my own, but a tabletop RPG requires other people. It's a lot easier for me to find people to play D&D 5e than The Great American Novel or Everway.

 

[pemerton]

Presumably, cave painters painted paintings for others to look at for some reason or another, and could be considered bad at their craft if others felt they had failed in some purpose, whatever that was.

In many cases we can only speculate why ancient artists created the rock and cave art that they did. The cultural meanings and reasons are lost to us.

Does that mean we can't admire their beauty? That their destruction would not, or should not, matter to us?

Something that is poor quality is something that isn't very good at doing whatever it is that it's supposed to do, and in the case of consumer products, it's to be used by the consumer for some purpose. So, who's the judge of whether or not a consumer product actually does what it's supposed to? If it's not the consumer, who is it?

A high quality computer display from 1987 isn't much today.

When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Is utility the only metric for judging human creations?

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

(Upthread I mentioned my tendency towards sentimentality. One way to think of sentimentality is as the creative coward's response to the threat of a truly unexpected response.)

 

[pemerton]

Isn't one of the issues with D&D 5e network effects?

Yes. And these are reinforcing over time.

They also interact with the streaming effect discussed above. Market presence and familiarity, streaming, player networks - these are all mutually reinforcing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In many cases we can only speculate why ancient artists created the rock and cave art that they did. The cultural meanings and reasons are lost to us.

Does that mean we can't admire their beauty? That their destruction would not, or should not, matter to us?



When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Is utility the only metric for judging human creations?

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

(Upthread I mentioned my tendency towards sentimentality. One way to think of sentimentality is as the creative coward's response to the threat of a truly unexpected response.)

There's a great deal of confusion between utility and quality in this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a great deal of confusion between utility and quality in this thread.

Not really. You just keep putting that on us, like you did to me with the tire example that I really didn't care about utility wise.

 

[fearsomepirate]

When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Well, the word is used in a variety of ways. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons, it's a consumer product, so I feel pretty comfortable using it the way we do in any industry. It's a being sold to customers for a purpose, and customers overall seem really happy with what they're getting. Expectations appear to be met or exceeded on most fronts (book binding, not so much).

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

Looking for something that emotionally moves you is still looking for that thing to fulfill a purpose, and you can still judge whether or not that thing did its job well.