D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay.

Do you use an analog clock, or a digital one on your phone?

Digital. And I don't think analog one would look more aesthetically pleasing on the cell phone, though that is a matter of taste.

 

[Hussar]

/snip.

The fact that you don't personally like a rule does not make it bad design for anyone else than you.

No. I call it badly designed ed because it’s vague, works poorly and requires the dm to make too many determinations without giving sufficient support.

Compared to say the 4e stealth rules which were clear (eventually), intuitive and very simple to use.

Even the 3e stealth rules were quite good and considerably better than the pretty much complete lack of rules in 5e.

“Figure it out yourself” is very bad game design.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well! 4e was more organized, until they started putting out extra material in additional players' handbooks, issues of Dragon magazine, Xxxxx Power supplements, and more. Finding options for your character got to be a real chore! (I had a crazy spreadsheet for my 4e warlock to at least have his own stuff in one place.)

But yes, the original Players' Handbook was very well organized and clearly written.

My experience with 4e is that my subscription to the online tools (specifically the character builder) meant that I had every possible option at my fingertips.

Once the character builder died, however, it was as messy as any other edition with multiple books....including 5e (looking at you 3-4 versions of various race choices).

 

[Mort]

No. I call it badly designed ed because it’s vague, works poorly and requires the dm to make too many determinations without giving sufficient support.

Compared to say the 4e stealth rules which were clear (eventually), intuitive and very simple to use.

Even the 3e stealth rules were quite good and considerably better than the pretty much complete lack of rules in 5e.

“Figure it out yourself” is very bad game design.

And yet it was 100% designed that way. In direct response to 3e and 4e which the designers felt caused too many weird situations. The designers felt putting it into the hands of the DM would be better and less confusing.

From a 2014 post by @Mistwell :

I posted this elsewhere but I suppose it belongs here as well. Mike Mearl's stealth answer from the Escapist Magazine interview from August 21, 2014 post on this board by @Mistwell:



Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules."

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."

"There is this funny thing that happens, and stealth is a good example of this. If you want to make a rule that is DM-proof, you end up with a rule that when humans try to read it, it just seems really weird. It’s like the old Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos, “If you want to create an apple pie, you must first create the universe.” I just want to make an apple pie, why are you describing how to make a black hole? Because this is way beyond what I need. So the rules just take on this tone where it doesn't seem like what’s actually happening at the table."

"Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible. You can hide, when people can’t see you. Of course, if someone can see me, then how can I hide? It just seems like common sense. Where, when you’re like, use the grid, and here’s the different gradations of cover, it ends up introducing all this jargon. We can take the simplest concept, like trying to hide, and turn it into something which looks completely alien to someone just reading it."

 

[LadyElect]

Okay.

Do you use an analog clock, or a digital one on your phone?

The rebut is that the measurable accuracy of digital clocks over analog is, for many (or few, or one—it doesn’t really matter) entirely separate from the concept of the value of watches as a product. Product features may have objective measurements, but those numbers only translate over to the concept of value/quality insofar as individuals desire their presence, which is inherently variable by nature. There’s certainly an abundance of cases where they align and where you can point to consensus among consumers, but that doesn’t usurp the subjective core of evaluating something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Digital. And I don't think analog one would look more aesthetically pleasing on the cell phone, though that is a matter of taste.

Okay. Why use a digital display? The two are identical in accuracy (since the analog one is just a display, being digital either way in terms of its timekeeping). What does digital give you that analog doesn't? Clarity. That's my whole point. It is objectively faster and easier to read a digital display than an analog one. If the purpose of the clock or watch is to be functional and not simply  pretty, then clarity becomes a rather important virtue.

And yet with game design, where the whole point of the rules IS very specifically to be functional, since that's literally all they are, clarity has been consistently sacrificed for aesthetics, specifically wanting LESS clarity. Why? That seems a very strange pattern. It would be like choosing the analog display because it is harder to read.

There’s certainly an abundance of cases where they align and where you can point to consensus among consumers, but that doesn’t usurp the subjective core of evaluating something.

You may note that my earlier posts in the thread said essentially this. I am aware.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible.

I really wish this were actually true anywhere near as often as he expected.

Also, as noted, while 4e initially had issues with it's stealth rules, they eventually got much better. I never understood why they threw that out. They worked and weren't that complicated.

 

[dytrrnikl]

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".

I don't get it. D&D is a product. The goal of the team developing it was to create something that would sell well, that would have staying power. They exceeded all expectations and we've had the same edition for a decade and it's still going strong with minor optional enhancements and modules. From a business perspective minimal investment + continued popularity + year after year double digit growth = quality.

My reasons for saying 5E is a quality product is simple:

1. It's had relatively little errata and clarification. With 3.0 we had so many changes that they had to release 3.5. With 4E, it had a ton of errata starting almost immediately after release and Essentials was an attempt to make fundamental changes to the game (even if for many it was too little too late).*
2. The rules are coherent and largely without conflict.
3. It's the most popular TTRPG ever. WOTC's goal is to sell books, stopping churn of new editions is also beneficial.
4. People may pick up D&D because of brand, but they play and continue to play it because it works for them. History is littered with products that were once successful and are now forgotten because they let quality slip.
5. My opinion based on what I value. This edition works better for me and my group better than any previous edition.

Many people will tell you that a Rolex is a higher quality than my old department store Casio digital watch I used to wear** because of what they value, what they consider important. But objectively? The Casio was likely as accurate if not more accurate than the Rolex. Probably less fragile, came with more functionality with features such as alarms, stopwatch, timer, a multiple time zone option. Objectively the Casio was a higher quality product, just not as flamboyant. For that matter, most people can't tell the difference between an $18 bottle of wine and a $3,000 bottle; they only rate the more expensive wine as better if they know how much it costs.

So how else are we supposed to judge quality of a product other than how well it sells and meets or exceeds it's targets? While nothing is perfect in my opinion 5E is a quality product, the highest quality of D&D released to date. If popularity isn't a primary indicator of quality, what is? Your opinion? Why is your opinion worth more than the opinions of millions who purchased and continue to play the game?

*According to Mearls, 4E was rushed to publication, they wanted something like Essentials integrated in on release and were not given enough time.
**Back when I wore a watch instead of carrying one in my pocket.

Whether 5E D&D, or any other edition or TTRPG, is Quality, is, at least from my perspective, entirely subjective. As much as D&D is a game, it’s also a form of art - interactive art. A great many people enjoyed 3E for its intense rule set designed around system mastery. Many enjoyed 4E for various reasons (I am not one of those who enjoyed 4E, felt like it leaned too hard into MMO ideology which I am not a fan). 5E is unarguably popular and has become mainstream. Does that mean it’s Quality? For me, no. But that’s more to do with my own biases against the mechanics being weighted towards character success moreso than in the past; admittedly, I am and always have been a fan of mechanics such as Save vs Death and greater chance of failure than is present, in general with 5E. So, I reiterate, from my perspective the “quality” of 5E is entirely subjective. I will say I believe is good enough that I have been willing to run it for teenagers at my local library since Sept 2021.

 

[Hussar]

And yet it was 100% designed that way. In direct response to 3e and 4e which the designers felt caused too many weird situations. The designers felt putting it into the hands of the DM would be better and less confusing.

From a 2014 post by @Mistwell :

I posted this elsewhere but I suppose it belongs here as well. Mike Mearl's stealth answer from the Escapist Magazine interview from August 21, 2014 post on this board by @Mistwell:



Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules."

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."

"There is this funny thing that happens, and stealth is a good example of this. If you want to make a rule that is DM-proof, you end up with a rule that when humans try to read it, it just seems really weird. It’s like the old Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos, “If you want to create an apple pie, you must first create the universe.” I just want to make an apple pie, why are you describing how to make a black hole? Because this is way beyond what I need. So the rules just take on this tone where it doesn't seem like what’s actually happening at the table."

"Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible. You can hide, when people can’t see you. Of course, if someone can see me, then how can I hide? It just seems like common sense. Where, when you’re like, use the grid, and here’s the different gradations of cover, it ends up introducing all this jargon. We can take the simplest concept, like trying to hide, and turn it into something which looks completely alien to someone just reading it."

I don't doubt that it was deliberate.

Being deliberate doesn't make it good. And, this is just Mearls punting on the issue. His argument that you wind up with "a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules." is pretty easily countered with, "how often?"

How often do these loophole situations come up? If they only come up once in a really, really blue moon, then they're not a problem, are they? And, wouldn't rules that have an odd exception that comes up in really odd situations be better than a non-rule which basically dumps everything in the DM's lap and expects the DM to make on the fly decisions that work for the table without any guidance from the rules and hopefully the DM is a good enough game designer?

So, no, I don't buy that it's good game design at all. Good game design doesn't require constant oversight from the DM just to make it work. Good game design works most of the time and then asks the DM to step in to sand off the rough edges when they come up. Which is precisely what the "rulings over rules" is supposed to fix. If you have to make rulings every single time, that's not a rule at all.

 

[payn]

This is one of the sentiments I have never understood.

It is always possible to add more ambiguity. It is difficult, if not impossible, to remove baked-in ambiguity. Why is it better to cater to you, who can always add the ambiguity you desire, than it is to cater to those who want rigor and clarity? A clear picture can always be blurred. A blurred picture cannot be made clear again, that is kind of the point of blurring it.

I dont buy the easier your way argument. Folks always use that one when they want their preference at the front. I've been trying very hard to make PF2 work and the system fights me the whole way. I can dial in 3E/PF1/5E pretty easy. I think bounded accuracy actually makes this very easy to do. Its kind of the best of both worlds (for me obviously).

So, this ones up to the feedback and designers choice in the future. If they decide to tighten it up, I'll just have it live with it or stick with an older game.