D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is that everyone wants to be personally catered to. And when the game has millions of people who play it...that's literally impossible to pull off. Which is why you end up with vague rules that sort of try to do everything sort of well enough but nothing great...because they're trying to appeal to the widest possible market...i.e. the lowest common denominator.

But there is a group who has access to a lot of data about what people think is broken and needs fixing. WotC. Trouble is...again...with millions of fans each pulling in different direction, they can't cater to everyone. They have to make design decisions that will be unpopular to some segment of their fanbase. It's literally impossible to make something that appeals to everyone equally.

Makes sense. How about, as a compromise, they just appeal to me and what I want instead?

 

[Guest 7034872]

Makes sense. How about, as a compromise, they just appeal to me and what I want instead?

Well, as solutions go, that does have the advantage of elegance and simplicity.

 

[payn]

The problem is that everyone wants to be personally catered to. And when the game has millions of people who play it...that's literally impossible to pull off. Which is why you end up with vague rules that sort of try to do everything sort of well enough but nothing great...because they're trying to appeal to the widest possible market...i.e. the lowest common denominator.

But there is a group who has access to a lot of data about what people think is broken and needs fixing. WotC. Trouble is...again...with millions of fans each pulling in different direction, they can't cater to everyone. They have to make design decisions that will be unpopular to some segment of their fanbase. It's literally impossible to make something that appeals to everyone equally.

That an D&D is an 800 pound gorilla in a room full of Chihuahuas. Its long been the most known and popular game in town so everybody wants it to cater to their tastes. When it doesn't, its an RPG desert, at least it was before internets.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Heh... is anyone ACTUALLY shutting down the discussion though? I'm pretty sure the other people just keep talking about the issues they have even if one or more people keep chiming in with "What you say is a problem isn't actually a problem." The only time the discussion really gets "shut down" is when folks are tossed from the thread or the thread is closed.

When a poster responds to a good-faith attempt to analyze problems and point out difficulties with either, "I don't have that problem, so it's not a problem" or "It's clearly selling well, so it can't actually be a problem," it's pretty clearly that poster who is shutting down any potential conversation. They are trying to, as I said above, use the trivial effort of pointing to sales figures, rather than engaging in the difficult (and at least partially subjective) process of analysis.

Above, I gave my breakdown of the places where I think 5e has weak design. (Again, I want to stress the difference between weak design and bad design; the former is merely flawed, to some degree, while the latter is unfixable without radical change. 5e has little to no outright bad design. 3e was chock-full of outright bad design.) I also clarified that, regardless of my personal feelings about some of its mechanics, it is inarguable that they have useful characteristics which have contributed to its success. Its qualities (note the plural!) and practical applications, coupled with a favorable market, favorable social trends, tons of free advertising (Critical Role and other podcast games), brand recognition/loyalty, and solid production values collectively led to success. Those qualities played a meaningful part. But they did not guarantee success.

Likewise, the fact that that success did occur does not give us any meaningful information about which qualities contributed to its success. People have a tendency to treat games as though they were absolute, monolithic units that must either be thoroughly loved or thoroughly hated with nothing between. This is obviously foolish. Editions of D&D are large things, made of many parts, and it is the overall sum of characteristics that matters for sales in most cases. Even if the collective qualities of 5e had absolutely and exclusively determined 5e's success (that is, even if we could be 100% sure that 5e solely sold well because of quality), we could not reason from that to the claim that absolutely every part thereof necessarily contributed to that success. It could be that some characteristics weakened 5e's success, that it could have succeeded dramatically more than it actually did if its characteristics were partially different.

That an D&D is an 800 pound gorilla in a room full of Chihuahuas. Its long been the most known and popular game in town so everybody wants it to cater to their tastes. When it doesn't, its an RPG desert, at least it was before internets.

This part often gets overlooked by folks. D&D is often, and sometimes literally, the only game in town. Whatever D&D is, is often the only thing people get to play. I would absolutely love to find a solid, reliable, long-running 4e game. I did what I could to make one happen. My efforts failed. (Well, I had succeeded quite some time ago, but the DM had to stop running because of a major family upheaval, and the group never recovered. No subsequent attempt has succeeded beyond a month or two, despite my best efforts.) Hence, if I want any realistic shot at actually playing in a game,* I pretty much have to accept either 5e or some variant/descendant of 3e. So I have to advocate for the kinds of experiences I want to see, because if I don't, I pretty much guaranteed won't get them.

*Because no, telling me "well just RUN 4e then!" is not even slightly helpful.

 

[Oofta]

If a book uses "it's" when it should properly use "its," it's not quality.

Regarding D&D, 5e was supposed to be a lightweight return to 3e, given the pushback on 4e and popularity of 3e. But since lots of people liked 4e, they didn't leave it all behind. So 5e is a high-quality mashup of two earlier editions, but it's a low-quality offering of anything new and interesting.

And ... this is where we get into the argument about what is quality. I disagree. I think the rules work just fine, thank you very much. When it comes to popularity, being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean quality, but I think the TTRPG market is a bit different from many other commodities. D&D hasn't always been the biggest, but in the past decade it not only regained market share and now dominates the market but has also seen double digit growth every single year. If it were a crap game we wouldn't see that.

So if the only way to judge quality is whether or not a person likes the rules, for you it is not a quality game. For me it is a quality game. Based on continued growth, the obvious conclusion is that a lot more people agree with me than you; I don't know how else you can spin it.

 

[Oofta]

It's wrong to attempt to claim that because it's popular, it's essentially anything but well, popular.

So someone says "5E is flawed in X ways"

and you retort "5E is popular, so your argument is invalid"

If someone says "it's a low quality offering" I will disagree and I think looking at sales history is appropriate because it shows that the game works for a lot of people. People are allowed their opinions, life would be boring if everyone disagreed. What I object to is the broad statements of "X is fundamentally flawed" said as a statement of fact instead of personal opinion.

Then you're not making any kind of rational or reasonable argument, you're just attempting to stop discussion with an appeal to emotion, essentially. That being the irrational belief that popularity represents anything but popularity. There are more specific arguments where popularity might be used as supporting evidence, but the probative value re: anything but popularity is limited.


Quality re: RPGs is subjective. Period. End of story. This was one of the first answers you received. That fact, and it is a fact, remains. No amount of demanding people provide you a "definition of" or "way to judge" quality is going to miraculously transform the objective fact of popularity into the subjective opinion of quality.

EDIT - I'm surprised no-one has brought music into this yet (ignoring the "Classical is the best!" comment, which I think we should). That's a particularly great example of popularity not equalling quality. Otherwise we have to accept that Daddy Yankee, Ed Sheeran, and Zhao Xian are the greatest musicians who ever lived, and I dunno about you, but I'm not ready to do that yet lol.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. I don't care for modern art, I prefer the old masters. But I wouldn't say [insert modern artist here] is poor quality, I just don't care for it.

 

[Campbell]

I'm actually extremely happy with the direction 5e seems to be heading in. Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything represent huge steps up in design quality from my perspective. I also really like the risks they are taking with stuff like Strixhaven.

I am also overjoyed that Paizo is developing Pathfinder Second Edition in a different direction that is just as high quality from a design perspective.

Mostly what I do not appreciate are people who show no respect for designers and fans of other games. I do not want to change the current trajectory of the game in any way. I would just like people to acknowledge that other games do some stuff better and that there is value in design diversity. This one game to rule them all mentality does not help our hobby.

 

[soviet]

I think the rules work just fine, thank you very much.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So if the only way to judge quality is whether or not a person likes the rules, for you it is not a quality game. For me it is a quality game. Based on continued growth, the obvious conclusion is that a lot more people agree with me than you; I don't know how else you can spin it.

By that logic 5e also has the best art, writing, marketing, etc. And I believe that 4e was touted on release as the best-selling edition, so I guess you accept that it was better than all previous editions, right? The People cannot be wrong.

 

[BookTenTiger]

To me, quality is measured by the following:

Does it fulfill its designed purpose well?

A table may be made of fine wood, but if one leg is shorter than the others then it's not a high quality table. On the other hand, something not intended to be a table (like a cable spool) can still make for a quality table, even if that's not its original purpose.

I think 5e is a lot of fun; I enjoy playing it and running it.

Does it match its original purpose? Or is it really good at being something else?

For me, 5e is really good at fulfilling its design. It is quick to learn, has enough crunch to think about, and rewards long-term play. So personally I consider it quality!

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.



By that logic 5e also has the best art, writing, marketing, etc. And I believe that 4e was touted on release as the best-selling edition, so I guess you accept that it was better than all previous editions, right? The People cannot be wrong.

This seems needlessly snarky.