D&D 5E What is Quality?

[EzekielRaiden]

If you could do what they did without needing the narrative mechanics that would be a heck of a game.

What narrative mechanics are these? OUTs?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What narrative mechanics are these? OUTs?

That and the Escalation Die are the first things that come to mind. My main issue with 13 Age, however, is simply that is mechanically based largely on 4th ed, and I really don't care for 4th ed.

 

[soviet]

Honestly, I ought to give you a less glib response.

Yes, there are basically two sides to this thread which I might (still glibly) characterize as: Oofta, and everyone arguing against Oofta.

So if popularity = quality this means that the lone voice's position is... ?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're the one who insisted (in multiple posts) that a game could have clarity without sacrificing the sense of "evocativeness" many seem to want. Asking for what you would consider a good example of your claim seems fair to me.

As I said, 13th Age isn't for me (although their version of the MM was very cool), but yes, I see what you're saying. If you could do what they did without needing the narrative mechanics that would be a heck of a game.

how do you prove or disprove evocativeness? If I tell you I found the fluff in X evocative and you didn't how do we square that circle?

 

[Micah Sweet]

how do you prove or disprove evocativeness? If I tell you I found the fluff in X evocative and you didn't how do we square that circle?

You don't. I wanted to know what they thought.

 

[Umbran]

I wanna see this! You have links to these measures and results?

I said that it was work that could be applied, not work that had already been done that you could look at. And this isn't the subject of a paper - at this point is is a body of work under study since the 70s, and furthering it can generally earn you a Masters degree or better.

The simplest way to describe how you'd go about it might be thus:

Take the RPG in question, and create a computer program for playing the game. The program doesn't have to be pleasant to play - indeed, for these purposes the most useful result might well be a UX nightmare - but it has to hold all the options the player and GM may choose to take at each step, and must apply every variable that might be applied, and does the math to resolve the action for you.

Measure the complexity of the resulting code. There are commercial tools that will do this in various ways, and there are further measures not usually seen outside academic information theory study as well. Master the realm of code complexity, and choose measures accordingly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That and the Escalation Die are the first things that come to mind.

this is a great example of what I mean...

we can each give examples of the escalation die working or not working... neither is proof of quality.

we can look at the sales of 13th age but that is not proof of quality or not.

I can tell you that the escalation die IS evocative to me (it has the story moving in a dynamic and fun way, in evocs stories in comics, movies, and even myths where as the fight goes on it is deadlier and deadlier) I can tell you that the 'on odds' and 'on 3 and 6' abilities show more about how a creature operates then 'recharge 5-6)... but you can come back and say escalation die isn't evocative and give your reasons.

so how do we talk about it?

 

[Umbran]

how do you prove or disprove evocativeness? If I tell you I found the fluff in X evocative and you didn't how do we square that circle?

Quality is not the study of individual experiences - it is the study of experiences in bulk.

Get a thousand randomly chosen subjects. Set them up to measure their pupil dilation, heart rate, brain activity, and so on, and have them read the fluff in question.

See above, about how this is all a lot of work

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Quality is not the study of individual experiences - it is the study of experiences in bulk.

Get a thousand randomly chosen subjects. Set them up to measure their pupil dilation, heart rate, brain activity, and so on, and have them read the fluff in question.

okay, but that seems well outside the capability of any/all of us and as such seems (IMO) to make the entire thread pointless. Nobody CAN do those test (I even doubt Hasbro could do them) so how do we discuss quality OTHER than us listing our own opinions?

 

[FrogReaver]

So if popularity = quality this means that the lone voice's position is... ?

You win. I can add nothing more.