D&D 5E What is Quality?

[DEFCON 1]

The mods like to remind people that "it takes two to argue," and it's not always the naysayers who perpetuate or aggravate conflict in these discussions. Being an ayesayer about a rules issue doesn't make you any less argumentative than being an naysayer. Laying all the blame to people who disagree with a rules issue presents an unrealistic and lopsided account of how discussion transpires on these boards (or elsewhere).

I absolutely agree. In fact, I usually believe that someone who posts a thread decrying some aspect of 5E on a board dedicated to the game of 5E is doing so looking to get into an argument.

If someone wants to decry 5E without recriving an argumentative response, they should probably do it on the "other editions of D&D" board, as they'd find a lot more people who agreed with them (which is why they were on that board in the first place). LOL.

 

[Lanefan]

Objective qualities about a physical product are easy to define.
Does it do what it is supposed to do?
Does it have a good expected life span?
Does it compare better than the competition?
And zounds of other qualities than can be measured such as : "Costs vs profits, amount of workers required, the materials needed (and their qualities), the energy required (electricity, steam), the dangers involved in creating the products (dangerous machines, chemical products needed to refine) and so on.

For an RPG. Some of the above can be used for the physical books. But most of the product is subjective by nature.
Art... subjective.
Rules... subjective.
Presentation... subjective.
The books themselves... Physical and this is the only thing which can be compared objectively.
Such as: The quality of the pages (whiteness, color holding capacity, roughness, lustrate, weigth and so on), the solidity of the cover, the way the pages are held together, the amount of pages, the ease of reference (index).

You missed one objective aspect regarding the quality of the books: the actual writing and editing.

Poor grammar, spelling errors, mis-used words, lack of clarity, bad or no editing - all of these are objective rather than subjective, and each of them - and each instance of them - lowers the objective quality of the book..

 

[Morrus]

I absolutely agree. In fact, I usually believe that someone who posts a thread decrying some aspect of 5E on a board dedicated to the game of 5E is doing so looking to get into an argument.

If someone wants to decry 5E without recriving an argumentative response, they should probably do it on the "other editions of D&D" board, as they'd find a lot more people who agreed with them (which is why they were on that board in the first place). LOL.

I want to clarify that those who want to criticize 5E are welcome to do so in the 5E forum, and that if you post 5E topics in the wrong forum we will need to move it to the correct one. Please do not post 5E topics in the 'other editions' forum. Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

Based on what? That the Rolex has higher bling rating? Because on all objective measures of functionality the Casio is as good or better.

The very fact that the Rolex can be counted on to outlast the Casio (and by a big factor!) is a direct result of its superior quality.

Quality does not equate to here-and-now functionaltiy. Both watches have that, and both are good at what they do. Quality equates in this case to how long I can expect that same degree of functionality to sustain without any further input from me other than occasional battery replacement.

 

[Charlaquin]

Popularity is not quality, but 5e is inarguably both popular and of high quality.

EDIT: Well, ok, inarguably is a poor choice of words, as people can and do argue both points. Rather, I think its popularity and quality are both self-evident.

 

[Morrus]

Popularity is not quality, but 5e is inarguably both popular and of high quality.

An excellent summation. It really is that simple.

 

[Lanefan]

Popularity is not quality, but 5e is inarguably both popular and of high quality.

Which, ironically, probably helps lead people toward mistakenly conflating popularity with quality.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which, ironically, probably helps lead people toward mistakenly conflating popularity with quality.

Absolutely. One might say that quality is often correlated with popularity, and the distinction between correlation and causation can be hard to grasp. But it is a fact that not all popular things are of high quality, and not all high quality things are popular.

 

[Mercurius]

Popularity is not quality, but 5e is inarguably both popular and of high quality.

EDIT: Well, ok, inarguably is a poor choice of words, as people can and do argue both points. Rather, I think its popularity and quality are both self-evident.

I think this is inarguable and self-evident in terms of popularity, but quality is far more arguable and nebulous, or at least needs to be more specific. See, "thread."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What's the discussion then? As I said further up... the threads could be "I have an issue, what are some solutions?" and then a handful of people give their solutions, the person who had the problem takes them and says "Thanks!" and the thread ends.

But if the thread doesn't end... it's because that's not what people actually want. If the people begin arguing back to the naysayers who show up, it's because they WANT to argue back. They WANT to prove to these people who say their issue isn't an issue that they are wrong. Like what you and I are doing right now. You didn't have to respond to me... you CHOSE to, because you think I am wrong. And I'm responding back now because I think you are wrong. And because I ENJOY these kinds of back-and-forths... I will be happy to respond back to you again should you quote this post at all and retort.

If someone is going to discuss something... they have to expect and accept that not everyone is going to agree with their take even if they don't like the response or think it's "unhelpful" (as though being "helpful" is actually any sort of requirement, LOL). And if they don't like that... they either probably shouldn't post a thread in the first place OR just not engage with the people who don't. But believing they can make a thread where they decry something in D&D and the only people who also come into the thread are other like-minded people responding with "Yeah! That's right! Preach on!" is rather kind of silly.

If you don't want your opinion rebutted... you probably shouldn't post it here on EN World.

But that's not what's happening, is it?

It's someone being low-level dishonest in their discussion. They say something is fine as-is, then later they admit they don't use it is as is. That's dishonest in any situation. It's like if I say "[Clothing brand] doesn't cut its jackets for the wider man" and you say "I'm wide and I wear them just fine, you're wrong!" and then it turns out, actually, you get them altered by your tailor, and they don't fit otherwise. All you're doing is misleading people and drawing out a discussion.

And being unhelpful on purpose, rather than disagreeing in a honest and however forthright and direct way is, um, crap? Really crap? Totally crap? Rubbish? It's certainly not "rebutting an opinion" to be unhelpful in that way, it's just feeding your own ego and wasting everyone's time. Like the weird vignette you made. That's not how people talk or act, it's not even a good satire on it. It's a self-vignette that I'm sure pleased you to write but that does not increase understanding or benefit anyone but you. I guess I just don't have a lot of time for people who think playing games with what they actually believe or what they actually do is big and clever. If you don't use a rule as written, just come out and say that, don't dance around the point claiming the rule is fine and then later admit you don't actually use it that way.