D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Maxperson]

Need to look into a husband's labor union. Anyone know any good ones?

I'm pretty sure that there's a union of wives who are very good at giving husbands more labor. Speaking of which, I have a lot of housework to do today.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I didn't say there wasn't a subjective element to it. My objection was to quality being described as completely subjective - because it isn't.

That's fine, then we'll just agree to disagree, but it is completely subjective. Even when a rubric is used, that rubric is developed by people, who are by nature subjective--can't be helped.

When it comes to popular entertainment, I disagree - IMO sustained popularity does speak to at least a minimal level of quality.

Again I have to disagree. Consider certain types of music. Because quality is subjective, some people might think rap or classical or country is "quality music", while other think any of them (or other genres) are garbage.

Anyway, I'm done discussing it. I understand your view, just don't agree with it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I feel that yes, they very much do all the time. That's why the idea of a + thread was proposed and adopted, because people want to discuss rules for X and not have the thread detail into having to defend the existence or need for rules for X.

 

[grankless]

It goes unspoken sometimes, particularly within the enfranchised DnD fandom, that a big part of its popularity stems from the fact that it is possibly the only work in existence that is directly synonymous with the medium it's in. The game has 50 years of branding behind it, as well as the advertising money and reach of one of the world's biggest toy companies for the past 20ish. Its popularity has built on itself - an outsized number of people who play DnD 5e literally do not know that other games exist. This is, flatly, not good for discourse.

 

[Morrus]

D&D was not always the best selling TTRPG and there's no magic associated to brand names.

You keep saying these really odd things. Of course brand names are valuable; that's why companies spent millions of dollars promoting them, and protecting them.

I feel like you have a very unusual view on what marketing is, and how it affects popularity.

(Again, you've been repeating the same thing for 10 pages now, so I don't expect this to sway your opinion one iota; it's mainly for the others reading here).

I have to bow out of this for a while ... things got busy and I have a honey-do list. Oh, and a game this afternoon for what I, and apparently millions of other people, consider a quality game.

I feel like this is a somewhat disingenuous misrepresentation of those who disagree with you. With a couple of exceptions, people aren't saying that D&D isn't a quality game. Most people here agree with you that it is. We're here on a busy D&D discussion forum for a reason. What we keep saying that its popularity is not proof of its quality.

But I feel like you must know that's what we're saying by now, yet you keep repeating it, so... yeah. Dunno where to go from there.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

"Eating McDonald's regularly — and fast food in general — isn't a sustainable diet. The 2004 documentary Super Size Me followed documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock as he ate three meals a day at the fast-food chain for 30 days. He gained almost 25 pounds and was told he suffered from irreversible heart damage."

Here's the thing about that. Spurlock's Super Size Me has be debunked multiple times and shown to be full of crap.

Here's just one example:
No one has been able to replicate Spurlock's results. Ever. Even basic math disputes the claim that his McDiet consisted of 5,000 calories a day.

And another:
Sweden's University of Linkoping tried to replicate Spurlock's experiment by having healthy college students do as he says he did. At the end of the 30 days, the students had none of the liver or cholesterol troubles Spurlock reported.

Also:
He also intentionally limits his exercise, something not under control of any fast food restaurant.

Also also:
Some people have lost weight eating nothing but McDonald’s. They just watched their calorie intake and exercised.

Triple Also:
Even Spurlock comes along in Dec 2017 and says: "I am part of the problem." Further stating: "I’ve consistently been drinking since the age of 13. I haven’t been sober for more than a week in 30 years.” Mr. Spurlock’s 2017 confession contradicts the statement in Supersize Me where he tells the doctor at the beginning that he has no alcohol use.

So, we have an already health-compromised guy lying about his intake and not exercising while also abusing his body with other intoxicants. Could it be that he made a Shock Value False-Documentary in order to gain some measure of success and fame? Naaaah. Who would do that?!

TLDR: The Super Size Me "documentary" should never be used as evidence of anything. I hate that movie. It's not the least bit helpful in fighting obesity and, in fact, he tend to mock the obese in it.

 

[Aldarc]

So this seems to come up on a regular basis. People say that 5E is not a quality product, I respond that millions of people disagree then out comes the retort "popularity is not quality".

In short, the core problem is that your response represents an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The response does not actually address, demonstrate, or counter-refute whether or not 5e is a quality product. As per the above Wikipedia entry:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[12][17]

Appeals to popularity are common in commercial advertising that portrays products as desirable because they are used by many people[9] or associated with popular sentiments[18] instead of communicating the merits of the products themselves.

5e D&D could be a quality product; however, appealing to the popularity of the product doesn't demonstrate its merits, quality, or goodness as a product: it only demonstrates its popularity, because the popularity of 5e D&D is not what is being debated. It could be a popular product despite being of poor quality. It could be an unpopular product that is high quality. It could be a high quality product that is also popular. Whatever the case, appealing to the popularity of 5e D&D as evidence of its quality is fallacious argumentative reasoning.

Now I presume here that you don't think that 5e D&D is an inferior quality product. Many people here are likely of a similar mind. You likely think that it's a good quality product and happy that it is likewise quite popular because that emotionally validates your own feelings about the product. But can you argue that it is a high quality product without appealing to its popularity? This is to say, on what actual merits of the product is 5e a high quality product? That is the point of contention.

If it is popular because it is a good quality product, then you need to address the actual merits of its quality as a product without appealing to its popularity. Otherwise, you also risk running into circular reasoning: i.e., "it's popular because it's good, and we know it's good because it's popular."

 

[DEFCON 1]

I feel that yes, they very much do all the time. That's why the idea of a + thread was proposed and adopted, because people want to discuss rules for X and not have the thread detail into having to defend the existence or need for rules for X.

I would counter with the claim that more often than not the people who could be just talking about X instead get themselves drawn into arguing with those other people.

Quite frankly, I think most threads here get made that seem to me to be vehicles for getting into arguments, rather than just passing on information or asking for assistance. Rare is the thread where the poster says "Here's a problem I've found in D&D with my game, and here is what I did to fix it"... because usually that thread gets several responses of "Okay, that's cool" and then thread ends. There's nothing to discuss-- a problem was highlighted and immediately fixed. Then the thread drops from the front page and is never seen again.

Or the other rare type of thread is someone who has an issue, asks for assistance, and then receives several suggestions from other posters... and the person says "Okay, that helps! Thanks!" And that thread also ends because the question was asked, and the answer was received. And again, POOF!, off the front page.

Instead... what threads usually are is someone who makes a statement about something they have an issue with... and are not asking for suggestions on to fix their problem, they just want to vent. And they vent away. Which is fine! Venting is good, venting can be fun, and venting can help deal with frustration. But at the same time... venting about something you have a problem with on a message board means you will receive several other types of responses-- people who agree with you, people who don't agree with you and will say why you are wrong, and people who will try and "solve" your problem with suggestions (even if you didn't ask for solutions.)

And yet the original poster sometimes seem surprised when they receive those responses! Like a person thinks they could say here "The D&D Inspiration rules suck and are the stupidest and most useless rules in the game"... and that a post like that would just... get acknowledged and go through with no response and no defense! Everyone is going to agree with them! Really? Does anyone truly believe they can just rip apart a section of the D&D game-- a section that probably has quite a number of defenders who actually LIKE those things-- and not get people to chime in with the opposite take? Who actually thinks that they could do that?

At the end of the day... if anyone makes an open-ended thread that doesn't end after like six posts with either an acceptable answer being given to a question or just a handful of "Good job!"s... you are going to get people arguing about it. And if you don't like that people are responding to your thread that way... then you probably need to change how you present your ideas in thread. Or at the very least... just voluntarily not engage with the people who are telling you they think you are wrong. You don't HAVE to argue back, you know. And even more importantly, don't QUOTE someone else in thread if you're trying to avoid getting into an argument, because any time someone directly responds to another person via the quote function, that other people is going to quote you back themselves. And that's the easiest way to get drawn into an argument.

If a person doesn't want to argue... they can just choose not to engage with the people who are goading them into it. But realistically I think people WANT to actually get into arguments and discussions and back-and-forths here... which is why some many of the threads are nothing more than hot takes meant to get other people up in arms. Because sometimes getting the chance to tell other people you think they are wrong is a hell of a lot of fun.

Goodness knows I love doing that to most of you most of the time.

 

[Aldarc]

And yet the original poster sometimes seem surprised when they receive those responses! Like a person thinks they could say here "The D&D Inspiration rules suck and are the stupidest and most useless rules in the game"... and that a post like that would just... get acknowledged and go through with no response and no defense! Everyone is going to agree with them! Really? Does anyone truly believe they can just rip apart a section of the D&D game-- a section that probably has quite a number of defenders who actually LIKE those things-- and not get people to chime in with the opposite take? Who actually thinks that they could do that?

Did no one learn anything from this thread about why not to make these sort of arguments?

IME, the responses from defenders of Inspiration on these forums typically don't post to say "Inspiration is fine," but, rather, typically post something more along the lines of "There is nothing wrong with Inspiration, but here are the fifty ways that I houseruled Inspiration to fix it and make it useful." Needless to say, it sends all sorts of mixed messages.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I would counter with the claim that more often than not the people who could be just talking about X instead get themselves drawn into arguing with those other people.

Quite frankly, I think most threads here get made that seem to me to be vehicles for getting into arguments, rather than just passing on information or asking for assistance. Rare is the thread where the poster says "Here's a problem I've found in D&D with my game, and here is what I did to fix it"... because usually that thread gets several responses of "Okay, that's cool" and then thread ends. There's nothing to discuss-- a problem was highlighted and immediately fixed. Then the thread drops from the front page and is never seen again.

Or the other rare type of thread is someone who has an issue, asks for assistance, and then receives several suggestions from other posters... and the person says "Okay, that helps! Thanks!" And that thread also ends because the question was asked, and the answer was received. And again, POOF!, off the front page.

Instead... what threads usually are is someone who makes a statement about something they have an issue with... and are not asking for suggestions on to fix their problem, they just want to vent. And they vent away. Which is fine! Venting is good, venting can be fun, and venting can help deal with frustration. But at the same time... venting about something you have a problem with on a message board means you will receive several other types of responses-- people who agree with you, people who don't agree with you and will say why you are wrong, and people who will try and "solve" your problem with suggestions (even if you didn't ask for solutions.)

And yet the original poster sometimes seem surprised when they receive those responses! Like a person thinks they could say here "The D&D Inspiration rules suck and are the stupidest and most useless rules in the game"... and that a post like that would just... get acknowledged and go through with no response and no defense! Everyone is going to agree with them! Really? Does anyone truly believe they can just rip apart a section of the D&D game-- a section that probably has quite a number of defenders who actually LIKE those things-- and not get people to chime in with the opposite take? Who actually thinks that they could do that?

At the end of the day... if anyone makes an open-ended thread that doesn't end after like six posts with either an acceptable answer being given to a question or just a handful of "Good job!"s... you are going to get people arguing about it. And if you don't like that people are responding to your thread that way... then you probably need to change how you present your ideas in thread. Or at the very least... just voluntarily not engage with the people who are telling you they think you are wrong. You don't HAVE to argue back, you know. And even more importantly, don't QUOTE someone else in thread if you're trying to avoid getting into an argument, because any time someone directly responds to another person via the quote function, that other people is going to quote you back themselves. And that's the easiest way to get drawn into an argument.

If a person doesn't want to argue... they can just choose not to engage with the people who are goading them into it. But realistically I think people WANT to actually get into arguments and discussions and back-and-forths here... which is why some many of the threads are nothing more than hot takes meant to get other people up in arms. Because sometimes getting the chance to tell other people you think they are wrong is a hell of a lot of fun.

Goodness knows I love doing that to most of you most of the time.

The + threads I am specifically thinking about are those where someone is theorycrafting optional rules or subsystems. The topic might be "Help me create a magic item shop" and within 5 posts somebody will pop in and post "I never use magic item shops" as their helpful contribution.

The OP in this fictional scenario isn't asking to debate the merits of magic shops, they just want help poking holes in or adding content to their proposed design or ideas.