D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Mort]

Do you think RPGs are valued purely as decorative accessories, to be fashionable or eye-catching, and not as (abstract) devices designed to perform a function?

Of course not. But that wasn't the point. The point is you have to judge "quality" in context.

So 5e has to be judged in the context of its ability to supply the best D&D experience (which is the goal) and not just some amorphous gaming experience.

 

[Hussar]

Well... I'd be interested to see the correlation between likes 5e/doesn't and fudges the dice/doesn't.

Note, we need to be very, very careful here in painting too broadly. Me complaining about the stealth rules in 5e, for example, does not mean in any way, shape or form that I don't like 5e. This is another element that gets applied too often. If you think something should be changed, or if you think something isn't working the way it could, does not in any way mean that you hate that thing or think that that thing is actually full on bad.

Heck, the stealth rules in 5e aren't bad. They work and they are workable. I think they could be a better, but, that doesn't mean that I hate the design, hate the rules or hate 5e.

Criticism =/= preference.

 

[soviet]

It can display 24 hour clock, which simply is the sensible way to measure a 24 hour day.


It's not. It might be for me an you, perhaps for most people, but it is not objective. I know this for a fact, my SO has several times explained to me that they find conceptualising time via analog clocks easier and more intuitive than with digital ones. And it makes sense, people process information differently, and analog clock shows the time as visual pie that will be easier to read to some.


If.


Who decided that's the whole point? Because a lot of people would disagree. That's not the whole point.



A lot of people treat a RPG book as holistic experience, and want the text to actually evoke the fiction. So to them a text that doesn't do this is lacking in quality. I don't think many people desire lesser clarity per se, merely they are not filling to sacrifice other things for maximal clarity.

And to add to that and connect it to the point of people processing information differently, some people actually found the concise and mechanics focused 4e powers evocative. But that obviously wasn't the majority experience.

I'm not sure what you base this last point on. 4e had a loud group of detractors (including Mearls) but you have no evidence at all about what the majority experience of it was. In fact, Wizards at the time said it was the best-selling edition ever, making it the second most popular RPG of all time. By the arguments posed in parts of this thread that makes it the second best RPG of all time.

 

[soviet]

Note, we need to be very, very careful here in painting too broadly. Me complaining about the stealth rules in 5e, for example, does not mean in any way, shape or form that I don't like 5e. This is another element that gets applied too often. If you think something should be changed, or if you think something isn't working the way it could, does not in any way mean that you hate that thing or think that that thing is actually full on bad.

Heck, the stealth rules in 5e aren't bad. They work and they are workable. I think they could be a better, but, that doesn't mean that I hate the design, hate the rules or hate 5e.

Criticism =/= preference.

I don't see how that relates to my post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If.

Your laconic response does not do you credit since the vast majority of clocks aren't there for aesthetic reasons. Clocks ARE tools. Do you deny this?

Who decided that's the whole point? Because a lot of people would disagree. That's not the whole point.

What are "the rules of a game" for? Rules of a game tell you how to play. That's a function. That's literally what rules are for. Unless you mean to tell me that the rules of blackjack are there to be appreciated as a beautiful work of art, in which case I find that absolutely hilarious.

I don't think many people desire lesser clarity per se, merely they are not filling to sacrifice other things for maximal clarity.

Then you aren't disagreeing with me.

And to add to that and connect it to the point of people processing information differently, some people actually found the concise and mechanics focused 4e powers evocative. But that obviously wasn't the majority experience.

Eh. I find it rather easy to generalize from influential vocal minorities to what "the majority" thinks. I don't think either of us knows what the majority actually thought about 4e. I think we both know that there was an active smear campaign from a chunk of 3e fans, many of whom actively told falsehoods about 4e in order to trash it, and many others who took "I'm unfamiliar with this" with "this is unplayable." I mean, for God's sake, there were people who straight-up declared that it was completely impossible to roleplay while playing 4e. Not that it was difficult, not that it was impeded in some way or another, but that it was completely impossible.

 

[Morrus]

This whole line of argument just grinds my gears.

The idea that a 17 year old kid microwaving a hamburger tossing together from company demanded proportions and then wrapping it up (hopefully carefully) in a waxed paper sheet is of comparable quality to the hamburger that I could get from a master chef with hundreds of hours of training, thousands of hours of practical work experience using only the highest quality of ingredients is laughable. But it's this attitude that expertise and training counts for nothing and that that all judgements of quality are solely subjective, thus, all judgements of quality are equal is so prevalent.

When you phrase it like that, it definitely has echoes of anti-intellectualism.

 

[Morrus]

Your laconic response does not do you credit since the vast majority of clocks aren't there for aesthetic reasons. Clocks ARE tools. Do you deny this?

I know this wasn’t directed at me but …. Oh my goodness, absolutely yes I do.

Clocks are often works of art. Watches are often jewellery. These items often far exceed the design brief of a hammer.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course not. But that wasn't the point. The point is you have to judge "quality" in context.

So 5e has to be judged in the context of its ability to supply the best D&D experience (which is the goal) and not just some amorphous gaming experience.

Oooookay...

I was doing that. I'm saying rules are a designed thing. They are tools, meant to achieve a particular result, in this case a gaming process and attendant experiences. I used the watch example for a reason: while aesthetic concerns absolutely apply (they are jewelry, after all), they are also tools and often used as such. There has been a pattern in D&D design, pretty much since the beginning, of prioritizing aesthetics absolutely and exclusively, and I find that to be a major disservice to the game. It is not a zero-sum game. You can make games that are clear without sacrificing important aesthetic value. The false dichotomy narrative people put forward on this front is actively holding back improvements in game design.

 

[Oofta]

As far as I can tell you are now trolling me. If not, you’re doing a damn good impression of it.

EDIT: If you don't want to engage in conversation, that's fine. I did not intend to troll, I was simply asking a question. We disagree, so be it.

 

[Oofta]

okay if I give you 99% what is the point it becomes 'enough'?

is it 51% saying so

For something like entertainment, where there is no objective measurement, I think one measure of quality is if the majority of people using a product works for them then it is a quality product. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, of course, everything can be.

We can't know, of course what percentage of people believe D&D is a quality product. The people I play with seem to think so, at a higher rate of satisfaction than the last couple of editions.