D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Ovinomancer]

An image is not an argument. It is an implication of an argument that you then don't have to defend, because technically you didn't make it. It may make you feel good, but makes your point unfalsifiable - nobody can argue against you, because you haven't actually said anything. Poor rhetorical form, that.

I'll provide the context, then, because I think it was a pretty good argument if you have it.

This is a graphic created showing the distribution of battle damage to the B-25s that returned to base after sorties during WWII. It has been used to to ask the question, "where would you increase the armor on this plane to improve survivability." The answer is, of course, everywhere there is NOT indicated battle damage. This is because it's ridiculous to assume the German Luftwaffe didn't shoot the planes everywhere they could, so the ones that returned with battle damage are the ones that were shot in places that were not vital. The ones shot in the blank areas did not come home.

This is an example of survivor bias, and it exactly what was displayed by the comment this image was posted in response to. That comment was, "I think one measure of quality is if the majority of people using a product works for them then it is a quality product." This entirely misses that there are plenty of quality products that are not being used and are not popular, so using popularity as a metric for quality misses quality due to survivor bias. That the statement is ALSO incorrect in that popular things are not necessarily quality (see Hunger Games and the Model T). For the record, I very much enjoy both the books and movies for Hunger Games, but they're not actually very good at all. And I'm okay with that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is legitimate to speak of "the game's popularity" - which admits that the popularity belongs to the game, and is therefore a quality of the game. It isn't an intrinsic quality, but nobody here has made a cogent argument that only intrinsic qualities are valid for discussion.

The thing that is D&D does not merely exist within a rulebook. D&D is explicitly a social activity. You cannot fully consider the qualities of a thing outside the context in which is is actually used - that would be like trying to judge quality of a car without considering the terrain over which the car is to be driven. The social aspects of the game, including its popularity, should be open to consideration.

Why? Because, when you are standing in the store trying to decide which rulebook to buy, the question, "How hard will it be to get people to play this?" is a legitimate factor in one's decision.

Popularity doesn't belong to the game, it belongs to the persons that engage it's popularity. You can tell -- remove the people and see if the popularity remains.

ETA: NOT an endorsement for the removal of people.

 

[FrogReaver]

The question is poorly formed. I have more drinking glasses in my home than frying pans - does that mean I don't have a good frying pan?

Quality cannot be considered free of the context of purpose.

A Ferrari and a Kia are both automobiles.
A frying pan is not a drinking glass.

 

[Oofta]

This is another goalpost movement. Now its not about popularity but about sales growth? ...

I mentioned double digit growth in my initial post. I've repeated that point many, many times.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes.

Depending on what you are looking at, either one is better quality than the other.

Warrantywise reveals most and least reliable cars in the UK

Warrantywise has published its reliability index, which reveals the Top 10 most and least reliable used car brands. It uses data compiled from over 131,000

www.motortrader.com

As you can see, Kia is number 8 on the most reliable brands, while Ferrari is number 1 on the least reliable brands. Looking at reliability, Kia blows Ferrari out of the water in a quality comparison. Looking at sports cars, though, Ferrari wins quality hands down since Kia doesn't even make the list. Or if you want to compare top speeds, Ferrari wins quality again.

Popularity is not a quality of something. Price is, though. Start selling Ferrari's for $17,000, the price of a Kia Spectra, and you will see the number of Ferraris on the road skyrocket, despite it's unreliability rating.

I think that’s a good point. Whether something is ‘quality’ depends on what qualities of it you are measuring.

For a car it might be speed, reliability, exterior look, etc.

Or for a car it might be price, expected miles, cost of repairs over lifetime, safety options.

In short both cars could be considered quality because there is little overlap in their purpose despite them both being automobiles.

 

[Oofta]

An image is not an argument. It is an implication of an argument that you then don't have to defend, because technically you didn't make it. It may make you feel good, but makes your point unfalsifiable - nobody can argue against you, because you haven't actually said anything. Poor rhetorical form, that.

While I agree (but chose to ignore it), it can be pointed out that the image shows a plane that took all those hits and still flew. Making it a high quality plane for it's time and purpose.

 

[Irlo]

@Maxperson got to the point I was skirting around earlier but that I didn't express very well. When we assess the overall quality of a thing, we are looking at an array of particular aspects in combination. Some of those aspects can be objectively measured -- reliability or fuel efficiency of a vehicle, or the nutritional value of a hamburger, or its cost. Some of those aspects are subjective -- aesthetics of a car's design, comfort of the seats, or the appeal of the smell of the burger.

What is also subjective is which array of aspects we value and weigh more highly than others.

Expert opinions from trained and informed sources are invaluable to gauge particular aspects of a thing, and those opinions might even convince us to value more highly aspects of a thing that we hadn't considered important before, but we can say for ourselves -- and not for anyone else -- if reliability and safety are better indicators of quality than performance and speed.

In the case of an RPG, there are I think few aspects that are objectively measurable. We can, like many have done in this thread, talk about what aspects of a game we value that informs our assessment of the quality of the game, but we're unlikely to come to consensus. We can suggest that high popularity is an objective measure that indicates that the game has many aspects that meet the criteria of a lot of people, but that won't convince everyone that it's a quality game.

 

[Umbran]

Popularity doesn't belong to the game, it belongs to the persons that engage it's popularity. You can tell -- remove the people and see if the popularity remains.

You are effectively asserting that the only qualities that exist are intrinsic qualities. This is an inaccurate picture of quality, overall - extrinsic qualities still matter in the real world.

 

[FrogReaver]

Though, regardless of how you mean it, every word is quality because it means something to somebody.

Blurgobardigigodomo

 

[payn]

Blurgobardigigodomo