D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Mort]

Another thing that needs to be up front (and quite possibly has already been stated in this long thread) - WoTC is constrained on the mechanics front.

Every rule, every revision, has to be weighed - does this stray "too far" from "D&D" and if so, no matter how "good" it is it likely can't be used. What's "too far" that's likely a know it when you see it standard.

 

[FrozenNorth]

One weird trick…statisticians hate this guy!

A minority of games reach 13th level. Of the parties that reach 13th level, a non-negligible amount of them do not has a caster that can cast Simulcrum. Even among parties of the correct level with access to the spell, there are many reasons a player may not cast it (not interested in the spell, did not have the components, does not have 12 hours to cast, etc.).

So, it is fair to say, that except for a minority of the minority, Simulcrum does not figure in their evaluation of the design quality of the game except in the abstract.

However, among parties that have reached 13th level and that have casters with both access to Simulcrum and an opportunity to use it, it seems that there is a high proportion of tables that ban it, nerf it, or otherwise consider that it unbalances the game to an unacceptable degree. So, among those for whom it is a relevant concern, it seems that Simulcrum is not a well-designed spell.

Just another reason that the popularity of a game is irrelevant to determining whether individual components are well-designed.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said that. Put it this way - if we could do a poll and 99% of the respondents said something was high quality, could we say that for most people it's high quality?

You can say that they think it's high quality, but without getting into the nitty gritty, you don't know why they think it is and "I like it." isn't really sufficient. Perhaps those people don't know that there's a similar product from a company with no money for advertising and is unknown to those people, but whose product is 10x better quality, such that if those 99% had been aware of this other product, would rate the one they use as average or below average.

You cannot use popularity alone as a metric for the quality of something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel like this conversation keeps getting rebooted to post #1. Whatever anybody says, you just repeat your OP again like the previous 365 posts simply didn’t happen. It’s quite frustrating. You’re literally ignoring anything anybody says and just repeating yourself over and over.

Of course that is what's happening.

I mean, I gave exactly what was requested, a breakdown of what things I consider to be quality design, an effort to specify criteria, that seemed to be meeting what Oofta asked for. That post (and essentially everything else I've said in the thread since) has been soundly ignored. I've made the effort to engage, I've been as clear and specific as I can. No response.

Because it was never about critique. It was never about asking what quality actually is, in terms of design for a tabletop roleplaying game. It was always about seeking a critical mass of fellow posters who agree that sales figures are an objective measure of the quality of a product without any further context. Such a critical mass would justify the use of this reasoning, and thus provide a satisfactory conversation-ending response to anyone who took issue with the conflation of sales figures and product quality.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course that is what's happening.

I mean, I gave exactly what was requested, a breakdown of what things I consider to be quality design, an effort to specify criteria, that seemed to be meeting what Oofta asked for. That post (and essentially everything else I've said in the thread since) has been soundly ignored. I've made the effort to engage, I've been as clear and specific as I can. No response.

Because it was never about critique. It was never about asking what quality actually is, in terms of design for a tabletop roleplaying game. It was always about seeking a critical mass of fellow posters who agree that sales figures are an objective measure of the quality of a product without any further context. Such a critical mass would justify the use of this reasoning, and thus provide a satisfactory conversation-ending response to anyone who took issue with the conflation of sales figures and product quality.

IMHO, the fact that the argument keeps dancing back to fallacious, superficial appeals to popularity is a bit frustrating. In so doing, the argument ironically cannot progress to the point where it can even consider or engage in discussions that could validate, legitimize, and support 5e as a quality product on its actual merits! Moreover, the fact that it can't progress also means that people who likewise believe that 5e is a quality product are forced to repetitively rebuke the argumentum ad populum fallacy rather than argue how 5e is a quality product.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, how is 5E quality then?

I think the problem is we would not even be able to agree on that.

Some people think the design is good, others find it lacking.
Some people think the artwork is good, others find it unappealing.
Some people think the language is good, others find it misleading and confusing.
Play speed of the rules, frequency of new releases, and many other factors can go into the overall product.

There is too much to determine all the factors, and even then in answering your views on each factor we do have, that answer is subjective for each individual.

I wouldn't rate 5E as good, but it is close IMO. Given the amount of time, money, and other resources put into it, I have to say I just expected more.

 

[Irlo]

It was meant as a question - how do you judge quality? To reiterate, if we could do a survey and the majority of people said something was high quality, would it be considered high quality?

It would be considered high quality (by the respondants to said it was high quality). It also would not be considered high quality (by those did not). So, no -- a survey would not convince me to consider something high quality. Knowing why respondants judged it to be high quality might be enough to sway me, if those reasons resonated with me.

Related is that when people state "X is bad design" they are stating a fact, not an opinion with the implication that if I like X then I just don't truly understand.

I disagree. "X is bad design" is an opinion. The term "bad" is a judgment, not an objective state.

It's perfectly fine to say "I like/dislike X".

Of course it's okay, but there are other opinions to express.

I like some things -- certain bad movies, some music from my youth, bowling alley nachos -- that I don't think are high quality. I acknowledge other things are high quality that I don't enjoy or desire at all. Experiencing like/dislike is different than assessing the quality of things.

 

[Mort]

IMHO, the fact that the argument keeps dancing back to fallacious, superficial appeals to popularity is a bit frustrating. In so doing, the argument ironically cannot progress to the point where it can even consider or engage in discussions that could validate, legitimize, and support 5e as a quality product on its actual merits! Moreover, the fact that it can't progress also means that people who likewise believe that 5e is a quality product are forced to repetitively rebuke the argumentum ad populum fallacy rather than argue how 5e is a quality product.

I'm going to make a different argument.

I'd say 5e is a quality product but that it DOES suffer from many of the problems pointed out by @EzekielRaiden here.

This in spite of access to clearly talented, motivated, and experienced writers.

Why?

BECAUASE of it's extreme popularity (emerging at the time and in full swing now).

Namely, the designers (and more importantly the higher ups making the money decisions) are likely VERY afraid to rock the boat and introduce anything that could negatively impact that massive popularity.

So I'd argue that 5e is not a "more" quality game (in regards to strong design mechanics etc.) expressly BECAUSE it's so popular. And I'd further argue, that, for me at least, that's not actually a bad thing. I mostly like my D&D as "D&D" even with the warts.

Thoughts?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

this is an issue I run into a lot when talking about cars. I am not a car guy, so tech specs are lost on me if not very general. However I can say I have had better experience with foreign breed cars then US made ones... but as I have been told time and time again, no matter where the company HQ is all the cars are made in factories here.

It probably matters much more how the car is designed than where it is physically put together. Different countries definitely have different design preferences.

 

[Mort]

I wouldn't rate 5E as good, but it is close IMO. Given the amount of time, money, and other resources put into it, I have to say I just expected more.

See, I do rate is as good, but could be "better" (but then just about everything could be better, so that's not saying much).

And I've seen some of the changes you'd make. While I think they could make for a good game they would Highly subtract from MY D&D experience.

Take the swinginess of the d20. I fully acknowledge the swinginess and like that in D&D. going to 3d6 would be horrible for me (I've played GURPS and it is lackluster for me, mostly BECAUSE of the saminess of the 3d6).

So it's quite difficult to come to a happy medium there!