D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Crimson Longinus]

"Fun" is not a measure of quality. How much you enjoy a thing is not a measure of quality. These are measures of, well, fun and enjoyment. You can fully enjoy things of low quality -- have a total blast with them, even. That you had fun is not a marker of quality.

Well, I'd say that users of an entertainment product consistently have fun using it is indicative of some sort of quality. Though of course it becomes far more useful assessment if we can actually unpack how that fun is achieved, as that allows enhancing and replicating that fun and possibly improving or removing parts that are unfun or anti-fun.

Which tangentially relates to my big peeve with WoTC surveys. They just always ask whether I'm satisfied with certain thing, but never why that might be, which seems pretty ineffective. If I wanted to improve my game, I'd like to know why people don't like certain features. Too weak, too powerful, too confusing, too thematically meh, etc?

 

[Morrus]

For you, perhaps.

For me, the only reason I ever wore a watch was to be able to know the time. Now that I have a phone that I carry around anyway and that tells me the time, I no longer bother with a watch.

Never mind that the damn things always broke anyway...

As a side note I find digging into my pocket, retrieving my phone, and opening the case far too cumbersome when I just want to glance at the time. But that’s an entirely different conversation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I'm just lying?

I am more inclined to think you might just be dealing with a selective memory. So...

"hardly ever"
"very rarely"
"maybe once or twice"

...is more probable than...

"never once"

 

[Eric V]

Well, we're not going to agree on this. Your bar for "objective" is so high that it's basically useless. The idea that better quality of food is "vague" basically rejects every single piece of standardization and study on the subject for the past 100 years. So, yeah, we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

Can you imagine comparing a burger served on a plate at a restaurant (where presentation is a huge part of the experience) to a big mac barely put together in its cardboard container and saying "eh, it's subjective."?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can you imagine comparing a burger served on a plate at a restaurant (where presentation is a huge part of the experience) to a big mac barely put together in its cardboard container and saying "eh, it's subjective."?

as a very young child I could imagine there was a time I would have said I preferred a McDonalds burger... but I wasn't the best judge of quality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I'd say that users of an entertainment product consistently have fun using it is indicative of some sort of quality. Though of course it becomes far more useful assessment if we can actually unpack how that fun is achieved, as that allows enhancing and replicating that fun and possibly improving or removing parts that are unfun or anti-fun.

I don't think you can really say this at all. I'm taking your statement of "some sort of quality" to mean good quality and not some evaluation of quality, like terrible or awful. In that sense, there's plenty of things people enjoy that are of objectively low quality, so an assignment of "good" quality because they enjoy it doesn't follow.

I mean, we can argue about the quality of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, but it's undoubtedly enjoyed by many.

Which tangentially relates to my big peeve with WoTC surveys. They just always ask whether I'm satisfied with certain thing, but never why that might be, which seems pretty ineffective. If I wanted to improve my game, I'd like to know why people don't like certain features. Too weak, too powerful, too confusing, too thematically meh, etc?

This I do agree with.

 

[FrogReaver]

as a very young child I could imagine there was a time I would have said I preferred a McDonalds burger... but I wasn't the best judge of quality.

i thought we’d already established the difference between preference and quality.

 

[Oofta]

But can you and the people you play with articulate why 5e is a good quality product without engaging in a circular argument that appeals to its popularity as a form of emotional self-validation of consumption?

It would be absurd, for example, for someone to argue, "5e is a good quality game because it is popular." The popularity might suggest that the game has qualities that people find desirable or enjoyable, but the conversation doesn't begin and end with appealing to its popularity. 5e's popularity should invite discussion of what those good qualities are.

Or to ask a different question. Let's say a hypothetical 6e came out that was far more popular than 5e. However, you dislike/loathe many of the changes that 6e made to 5e, so you naturally prefer and enjoy 5e more. But your belief that popularity is the benchmark of a product's quality would suggest that 6e is a higher quality product than 5e. So how would you argue that 5e represents a good quality game if you could no longer appeal to 5e's popularity for support of its quality? Why does 5e work for you? How is it good?

Assuming that this theoretical 6E was not only popular but continued to grow year after year, yes I would say it was a quality product whether I personally enjoyed it or not. Entertainment like D&D are there to ... wait for it ... entertain as many people as practical given it's niche market target. Just because I don't find something entertaining doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge that many people do.

I know it's pointless at this point to repeat, but it's not about market share or popularity per se. It's about double digit growth for a decade, it's about the fact that (according to the other thread) that it "has been growing at a50% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the last 3 years." according to this thread.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I'd say that users of an entertainment product consistently have fun using it is indicative of some sort of quality. Though of course it becomes far more useful assessment if we can actually unpack how that fun is achieved, as that allows enhancing and replicating that fun and possibly improving or removing parts that are unfun or anti-fun.

Which tangentially relates to my big peeve with WoTC surveys. They just always ask whether I'm satisfied with certain thing, but never why that might be, which seems pretty ineffective. If I wanted to improve my game, I'd like to know why people don't like certain features. Too weak, too powerful, too confusing, too thematically meh, etc?

I always wonder if anybody actually looks at the comments section. I would assume that if something gets a low ranking they do more detailed analysis and polling, just not on a broad based public scale. I appreciate the surveys, but they only tell the company so much.

 

[FrogReaver]

Assuming that this theoretical 6E was not only popular but continued to grow year after year, yes I would say it was a quality product whether I personally enjoyed it or not. Entertainment like D&D are there to ... wait for it ... entertain as many people as practical given it's niche market target. Just because I don't find something entertaining doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge that many people do.

I know it's pointless at this point to repeat, but it's not about market share or popularity per se. It's about double digit growth for a decade, it's about the fact that (according to the other thread) that it "has been growing at a50% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the last 3 years." according to this thread.

Is a Ferrari or a Kia a more quality automobile? I see a lot more Kia’s around than Ferrari’s. Does that mean Kia is better quality than Ferrari?