D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Thomas Shey]

But I remain of the view that popularity is not a metric for quality or aesthetic value: which was the point of my comparison of The Hunger Games to The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle; and of The Hardy Boys to At Swim-Two-Birds.

This is the only reason I even got into this; I try to make it a habit of not assessing D&D5e because I'm just generally not a big fan of the D20 sphere design approach, so to some extent it'd come across as my complaining a hamburger is not a ham sandwich.

But the attempt to use popularity as a demonstration of quality on the face of it seems intrinsically flawed.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

But the attempt to use popularity as a demonstration of quality on the face of it seems intrinsically flawed

It is flawed. But we have no other metric. There is this idea of Network externality, which shows us that popularity is perceived as a sign of better value by consumers. This is all circumstantial, and the counter arguments cannot be disproven as the end assessment of good or bad is subjective. But at least in this case we are interpreting observational evidence.

When we look at our alternatives for measuring game design quality we run into a sea of subjective-ness. Where not only is the interpretation of the evidence is subjective, but every other step of the process is as well. This is even a more flawed approach, as you lack the observational evidence as a starting point. You are just engaging in conjecture, instead of the above, where you are drawing a conclusion based on evidence.

So "flawed" might still be the "best" when the alternatives are blind conjecture and napkin math.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I admit the question was kind of a leading one, because my answer to it is "absolutely not."

Because that's--allegedly--the benefit of this glorious age of "DM Empowerment." That it's supposed to be, in a sense, boutique for everybody. Everybody gets something custom-tailored to them specifically because they custom-tailor it themselves!

My problem is that I find that this lofty ideal not only falls painfully short, I further find that the books don't even quarter-ass the tools needed to actually DO that, and cover the gap with "you're the DM, you figure it out!"

Well, I've expressed my opinion of throwing everything into the GM's lap before, so I won't revisit that. I do think there's a certain consistency baked into D&D, in that the specific quirks of a lot of things that are really recognizable as D&Disms that you're unlikely to see the equivalent in other games that are not setting-specific.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But, when your design goal is to be as broadly played as possible, and you achieve that goal by actually being played by as broad of a spectrum of people as possible, then popularity is absolutely meeting your design goal.

That's not a design goal for the system. Its a design goal for the product. They aren't the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is flawed. But we have no other metric.

If that's the best metric you find acceptable, bluntly, I wouldn't talk about it all. Its bad enough I think it corrupts any value to the discussion.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well most of tge explanations fo 5E success were there for earlier editions.

Two things were not though.

1. Mature social media environment.
2. Positive reception (due to its design) in mature social media environment.

Pretty much everything boils down to its design. Even if you don't like it others do.

3E didn't gave that and 4E had a negative reception during 4E lsunch at the start of mass social media. Older editions lacked that entirely (forums dont count).

No other editions had those factors its unique to 5E.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

If that's the best metric you find acceptable, bluntly, I wouldn't talk about it all. Its bad enough I think it corrupts any value to the discussion.

But that is the only metric proposed that is not fully opinion. So if that metric "corrupts any value" what does that say about every other "metric," all of which are significantly less objective?

EDIT: Just to make my position clear. It's okay if people don't like popularity and player retention as evidence, but to claim that mere opinion is better than observational evidence, as is often done, is a wild assertion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But that is the only metric proposed that is not fully opinion. So if that metric "corrupts any value" what does that say about every other "metric," all of which are significantly less objective?

I'd have to buy your premise to answer the question.

EDIT: Just to make my position clear. It's okay if people don't like popularity and player retention as evidence, but to claim that mere opinion is better than observational evidence, as is often done, is a wild assertion.

Again, this requires accepting your definition of "mere opinion".

 

[mikeburke]

When it comes to lawns, personally what I find beautiful is a yard planted with native wildflowers supporting the bees and pollinators of all sorts while also providing food to birds.

Meanwhile some people would call the following a great work of art and of the highest quality. The following just sold for $93.1 million. To me? It looks like something a reasonably adept kid in junior high could have done.
View attachment 383277

I agree with your take generally, but I wouldn’t try to correlate artwork value with beauty. It’s basically a speculative market and as much a function of the artist than the art, AFAICT.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with your take generally, but I wouldn’t try to correlate artwork value with beauty. It’s basically a speculative market and as much a function of the artist than the art, AFAICT.

True, but some people seem to be truly impressed with works of "art" that just don't move me. While I do like some post-impressionist work like Van Gogh, even with those there was skill and, for lack of a better term, craftsmanship to the works.

I mean, if you think someone taping a banana peel to a piece of paper a work of art more power to you. But it's still a subjective opinion.