D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Maxperson]

You haven't met my dog.

I lost more than one D&D product to mine as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Great can be improved.

Yes. Was this in question? Improvements that require large changes do call into question "great" though.

As I said earlier. The concentration rule is used as is in one of my table (the exhibit one) and at two others it was modified because we play a modified version of the game with the rules found in the DMG. What can be perfect for one table might not be for another. And here, you have a DM that uses both the unmodified version and a modified version of the same rule. What do you make of that?

This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.

this is pretty much what the whole thread (beer, wine, movies aside) is about. "If I assume that everyone is having the same experience as me, everything is fine..." mixed with "if it sells it works"

I was not around for 1e-2e but I have been told several changes were from popular house rules.

I know through Con and Store play that around 1998 people playing 2e were talking about letting people increase stats at levels (and how the str % interacted with that). I also know that at least 1 DM as early as 1996 was having max hp at 1st level, and by 98-99 it was common. I even remember DMs talking about redoing stats so wizards could get bonus spells from INT like clerics did from Wis...

NOBODY i knew or talked to was useing cha as a caster stat... BUT I did know people let wizard cast any spell they knew (aka partial sorcerer mechanic)

4e and 5e were such HUGE changes I don't know if I could talk house rules really...


so I pose a chicken/egg question. Did the mechanics come first (in popular house rules) or the edition?

 

[Oofta]

That is sort of like giving out an automatic C tho. It's fine if that is how you see it. Though, someone who is really into food (consuming and/or preparing) there will surely be a better quality range between establishments. They will also compare like for like items I.E. burger vs burger or salad vs salad with no personal qualifiers like affordability or health requirements. Those are fine factors in judging an establishment overall, but they are yours personally and not a fair judgment of the product itself.

Both restaurant chains have high quality standards that leads to consistent food (whether it's good or not is literally a matter of taste), brightly lit interiors that are kept clean.

How else do you judge quality? People think they want jewelry made out of pure gold, but most gold jewelry is actually an alloy because gold is too soft and rings are generally 75% gold at most. My basic premise is that quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. Things that may add value for you, will in many cases not add value for me. Pure gold is a great conductor of electricity, not so good for rings.

 

[LadyElect]

This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.

It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?

 

[payn]

Both restaurant chains have high quality standards that leads to consistent food (whether it's good or not is literally a matter of taste), brightly lit interiors that are kept clean.

How else do you judge quality? People think they want jewelry made out of pure gold, but most gold jewelry is actually an alloy because gold is too soft and rings are generally 75% gold at most. My basic premise is that quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. Things that may add value for you, will in many cases not add value for me. Pure gold is a great conductor of electricity, not so good for rings.

There is an entire karat system for judging gold quality in jewelry. You may not see it, but a jeweler certainly can. The aesthetic element is entirely subjective. Comparing it to things its not supposed to do like be hard or conduct electricity is entirely besides the point. They use gold because its rare, and thus valuable. It still has an objective quality as an item. It doesn't matter if you think that is useless or ugly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?

No, because if I'm making a change it's because I have an issue -- this is not doing the job I want and that is. If the change is an official options versus a houserule only matters in the sense that there's some official recognition of a difference in use case. Doesn't really go to my points, much. Errata is a claim that the designers feel the rule is not working properly. How they make that determination is up to them.

 

[Maxperson]

Both restaurant chains have high quality standards that leads to consistent food (whether it's good or not is literally a matter of taste), brightly lit interiors that are kept clean.

How else do you judge quality? People think they want jewelry made out of pure gold, but most gold jewelry is actually an alloy because gold is too soft and rings are generally 75% gold at most. My basic premise is that quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. Things that may add value for you, will in many cases not add value for me. Pure gold is a great conductor of electricity, not so good for rings.

How do you judge quality for food. Taste, materials(Kobe Ribeye is higher quality than round steak, extra virgin olive oil is higher quality than McDonalds fry oil, etc.), and health.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Re: MaccyDs, I think one major factor a lot of people are forgetting is price and availability.

Those two factors + branding/advertising are why MaccyD's is so successful.

If people could:

A) Eat wherever they wanted (say a cheap/free teleporter system)

and

B) Eat whatever they wanted (say we're in the TNG/DS9 future and money isn't being exchanged)

and

C) All restaurants has theoretically infinite capacity (somehow?)

Then I think you'd seen an extremely steep decline in the popularity of a quite a few kinds/brands of fast-food restaurant (maybe the vast majority), and a very steep increase in the number of people ordering from "5 star restaurants". McDonalds wouldn't instantly vanish. It has a peculiar charm all its own and is traditional for some people, but like, about 80-90% of the times I've been to McDonalds in my life, and I think this applies to a very large number of people, the essential reasons have been:

1) It was there and I was hungry.

2) It was cheap. It is cheap. It's a good price.

3) It's a known quantity/reliable (this speaks to a kind of quality, btw).

Maybe also:

4) It's pretty reliably fast - I would say this is decreasingly true in the COVID/delivery era, but KFC and a few others are hit even harder.

In those cases, if I could have just teleported though, and the cost didn't matter, would I have gone there? No. Even if I wanted fast food, that is far from my top option. Most of the rest would been breakfast times and before the pancakes started being so rubbery! Even if price was a factor, if I could just teleport within Greater London I'd only be paying 10-20% more to get stuff that was like 200% more pleasant/fun to eat.

So I feel like ignoring these factors and bringing up restaurants a lot is really confusing the issue. D&D isn't like a restaurant. It's actually much more expensive than most other RPGs, but who even knows that? I know normal people don't. They don't even know how much D&D costs. I've talked to normies - they're always surprised either by how expensive or how cheap D&D is! No of them guess the book prices right, and most of them don't even realize you need three books - I sure didn't when I started D&D, despite having been told about it by multiple D&D players. They missed that bit! It's so dominant and such a peculiar thing that I can't even think of comparison industry that really makes sense.

 

[Aldarc]

It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?

It reads to me like this is a bad faith take on what @Ovinomancer is arguing.