D&D 5E What is Quality?

Snarf Zagyg said:

There’s a vast difference between experience, expertise, and objective facts.

1. The fact that experience differs between people and can lead to different conclusions means that when experience leads to different conclusions about something, that thing … is, by definition, subjective.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It could simply be that they are using different criteria. Granted, that choice of criteria may be subjective, but, then again, we can at least try to be as objective as possible.

Snarf Zagyg said:

2. Expertise allows people to draw better conclusions and inferences from facts, but the whole point of having something that is objective is that it can be determined without reference to expertise. And if you don’t understand that distinction, try viewing any trial with dueling experts qualified under Daubert.

Click to expand...

This definition of objective means that only quantitative elements can be objectively compared and I reject that.

The idea that I can draw a picture and that it is considered of equal quality to a Michelangelo painting simply because there are not quantitive standards for judging the quality of art is something I strongly disagree with. I disagree that qualitative elements cannot be objectively discussed simply because we cannot put a number to it.

To argue that qualitiative elements cannot be objectively compared means that expertise means nothing. Since we can't actually put a number on something, that means that we cannot judge it's quality (or lack thereof)? I cannot look at some direct to TV trash movie and objectively state that it's not as good of a quality of a movie as, say, Schindler's List? I don't buy it.

Qualitative standards do exist. Common man standards, for one. They exist for a reason. Is that standard subjective? Well, kinda. It's developed over time and stands up pretty well. It's no more subjective that deciding what a calorie is. More vague, true, but, not less objective for that.

Hussar said:

This definition of objective means that only quantitative elements can be objectively compared and I reject that.

The idea that I can draw a picture and that it is considered of equal quality to a Michelangelo painting simply because there are not quantitive standards for judging the quality of art is something I strongly disagree with. I disagree that qualitative elements cannot be objectively discussed simply because we cannot put a number to it.

Click to expand...

See? This is the perfect example of why I disagree with you.

Your argument will forever privilege the opinion of gatekeepers over actual people; moreover, it ignores the actual history of the thing being discussed, dismisses the contributions of (inter alia) movements like folk art, and doesn't even grapple with the nature that the appreciation of art is completely subjective.

Let me turn this around- if your child makes you a drawing, and dies shortly after, is that art more important to you than a Leonardo you see in the museum?

Or how about this- Salvator Mundi was attributed to Leonardo (the "Last Lenoardo!") and sold for $450 million. However, it probably isn't a Leonardo - and the painting itself is ... not great. Its value does not lie in the artwork, but in the (probably incorrect) attribution. Prior to this attribution, it sold for $1,175.

People's preferences (for modern art, for classic art, for kitsch, for Hummel figurines or Superhero prints) are incredibly subjective. That doesn't mean that experts cannot discern differences in art that most people do not understand (such as explaining why the patterns in a Pollock are so compelling, or the importance and skill in a Kusama Infinity Net Painting, or the brushwork in a Leonardo), but I will have to categorically reject the idea that someone else gets to tell me what art I have to enjoy or not because it is "better" or "worse."

Or, for that matter, what qualifies as art and what doesn't.

Hussar said:

To argue that qualitiative elements cannot be objectively compared means that expertise means nothing. Since we can't actually put a number on something, that means that we cannot judge it's quality (or lack thereof)? I cannot look at some direct to TV trash movie and objectively state that it's not as good of a quality of a movie as, say, Schindler's List? I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

One person's trash TV is another person's amazing cult program that snobs overlook.

One person's Schindler's list is another person's overwrought Spielbergian middlebrow movie that elevates cheap pathos because ... it's easy to evoke.


It was 70 years ago that Cahiers du Cinema began celebrating the work of "trash genre director" Hitchcock, by the way.


ETA- anyway, all of this goes back to the original point I keep making. People need to stop using "objective" to privilege their own opinions. If something really is objective, then there shouldn't be an argument. The temperature is objective. Your opinion about what art is better ... isn't.

Snarf Zagyg said:

Let me turn this around- if your child makes you a drawing, and dies shortly after, is that art more important to you than a Leonardo you see in the museum?

Or how about this- Salvator Mundi was attributed to Leonardo (the "Last Lenoardo!") and sold for $450 million. However, it probably isn't a Leonardo - and the painting itself is ... not great. Its value does not lie in the artwork, but in the (probably incorrect) attribution. Prior to this attribution, it sold for $1,175.

People's preferences (for modern art, for classic art, for kitsch, for Hummel figurines or Superhero prints) are incredibly subjective. That doesn't mean that experts cannot discern differences in art that most people do not understand (such as explaining why the patterns in a Pollock are so compelling, or the importance and skill in a Kusama Infinity Net Painting, or the brushwork in a Leonardo), but I will have to categorically reject the idea that someone else gets to tell me what art I have to enjoy or not because it is "better" or "worse."

Click to expand...

I would expect that the drawing is worth more to the parent, yes...but that doesn't mean its artistic quality is superior all of a sudden. It has more emotional value.

As well, no one is dictating what art one must enjoy; I haven't seen that argument anywhere. Again, we should be able, as reasonable adults, to say that I have a preference for something, even if I admit that its quality isn't particularly good. Can people not say "I know it's crap, but I just like it." I can admit there is an aspect of a particular reality tv show that keeps me engaged, even if I understand that overall this is garbage television.

"It's great art, even if it doesn't particularly speak to me."
"I understand why it's considered the best movie of all time on many lists; I just don't particularly like it myself."
"I have never been able to appreciate Mozart, but I understand he was a great composer."
"Sometimes, you just want a Big Mac, you know?"

Being able to admit (not you, particularly) these kinds of things allows us to be able to engage in non-quantitative aspects of quality without placing our personal preferences in the mix.

Hussar said:

To argue that qualitiative elements cannot be objectively compared means that expertise means nothing.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what it means. Qualititative aspects of art, fashion, architecture, cooking,RPGs ... these all have contexts (social and culturual contexts (among many others) and intersect with people's individual experience in different ways. Experts, we might say, are very good at creating or assessing quality within certain subjective contexts. Experts might explain their criteria in a way that changes for us the context in which the subject matter is received. Subjective =/= meaningless.

Hussar said:

Since we can't actually put a number on something, that means that we cannot judge it's quality (or lack thereof)?

Click to expand...

Of course we can judge. Each and every one of us make judgments about quality all the time.

hawkeyefan said:

What games beside D&D 5e would you classify as quality games?



I don’t think it’s about the popularity of your opinion so much as about how little you’ve said about anything. You think D&D is a quality game because lots of people have purchased it.

If someone asked you why you like 5e, I hope you’d have more to say than a shrug emoji followed by “because it sells well”.

You’ve said almost nothing in this thread.

Click to expand...

If brand name recognition, hype and advertising were all that was needed to make a product popular we'd all be sipping new Cokes while getting directions from our Google Glass while riding our Segway to the local Borders. Maybe the Oldsmobile is in the shop and we should check our Apple Newton for when it's going to be fixed or call on our Google Phone.

Branding and advertising doesn't automatically mean success, many products have been pushed by big names with plenty of backing but failed because they failed to meet the needs of the target audience. Whether they were technically sound did not matter, I don't think they were quality products.

That's all I was trying to say. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. If 5E were low quality it would not be successful, since it is successful it follows that it is a quality product.

But the thread is not a manifesto of why I think 5E is a quality product, it's a question. What is quality? I can judge whether 5E is a quality product for me. I believe it is because I have no problem finding players or joining games that people enjoy and have a minimum of complaints about the system. How do you define it? I have a premise, a way of measuring the collective subjective experience that I think works. Do you have a better way of judging quality? Something other than saying it's impossible because you compare two products that target completely unrelated markets?

Eric V said:

I would expect that the drawing is worth more to the parent, yes...but that doesn't mean its artistic quality is superior all of a sudden. It has more emotional value.

Click to expand...

So ... what you are saying is that to that person, that art is superior, because it has more emotional value.

Or are you saying that we cannot value art for its power to evoke emotion, but only for its technical merit? That a Dutch Master (for example) will always and forever be "better" and "more quality" than folk art, no matter how powerfully that art moves you? Wouldn't this always and forever privilege the canon of western-style art that has been taught?

Or are you saying that we cannot value the expertise in someone who understands how to make great art, but is deliberately breaking the rules?

Eric V said:

As well, no one is dictating what art one must enjoy; I haven't seen that argument anywhere.

Click to expand...

That's ... what ... objective ... means.

If today's temperature is 98 degrees, and yesterday it was 80 degrees, then today it is HOTTER than yesterday. The temperature is, quite literally, a fact that is dictated to you. You can't argue with it.

Here's your quote-
"but that doesn't mean its artistic quality is superior all of a sudden."

If quality is OBJECTIVE, then:
1. One piece of art can always (ALWAYS, because that's what objective means) be determined to be superior to another.
2. Therefore, it can always be determined in an absolute ranking, without any possibility of argument (OBJECTIVE) the ranking of art relative to each other.
3. From that point, it is a necessary implication that people that enjoy inferior art .... I'll let you think about that.

Eric V said:

Again, we should be able, as reasonable adults, to say that I have a preference for something, even if I admit that its quality isn't particularly good. Can people not say "I know it's crap, but I just like it." I can admit there is an aspect of a particular reality tv show that keeps me engaged, even if I understand that overall this is garbage television.

Click to expand...

Of course you can! Guilty pleasures and all that. Then again, if it's keeping you engaged and you are watching it ... is it really bad television? Or is it just the case that maybe you don't want to admit that you are amongst the common people enjoying it?

Eric V said:

"It's great art, even if it doesn't particularly speak to me."
"I understand why it's considered the best movie of all time on many lists; I just don't particularly like it myself."
"I have never been able to appreciate Mozart, but I understand he was a great composer."
"Sometimes, you just want a Big Mac, you know?"

Being able to admit (not you, particularly) these kinds of things allows us to be able to engage in non-quantitative aspects of quality without placing our personal preferences in the mix.

Click to expand...

Yeah, again, there's nothing wrong with attempting to view things objectively (this goes back to my original post on the subject- like a journalist, or a judge, or a jury attempting to use the 'reasonable man' standard). But unless there is an inarguable metric, it's still a subjective standard.

This is the fundamental divide that I keep explaining. The jujitsu that people keep using in order to make their own preferences inarguable. If something truly is objective (the calories in a burger, the pages in a book, the temperature, the year that the Berlin Wall actually fell, etc.) then it can't be argued.

When people say things like "The quality of a movie/game/art is objective," they are attempting to glom on to that in order to make their preferences seem ... well, inarguable. But all you have to do is look at the changing tastes regarding movies, games, and art and you'll see that it's an issue of preferences.


And that's fine! After all, if something is truly objective, it's not much fun to discuss ... is it? Hot enough for ya?

This thread no longer deserves a cool theme song. What is quality? Its what you love!

Hussar said:

The primary issue with this thread is Oofta hasn’t actually defined “quality”. Without specifics it is impossible to discuss.

But I have to admit that I reject the notion that only quantitative differences may be judged objectively. I find that’s too restrictive and discounts experience and expertise.

Click to expand...

I've been busy and may not have seen it, but how do you define quality? I was trying to ask (and obviously failing) to start that question. I think quality for a product like D&D will always be subjective after a certain level of competence. I thought I explained what I was getting at in the first post. From a company perspective it's a quality product because it's commercially successful. For a lot of people it seems to be a quality product because they buy and play it.

For me personally? Well, I like the scope and feel of D&D. I'm not tied in to some predefined moral structure dictate like some superhero games where everyone has a secret identity and killing an enemy is the worst thing you can do. The settings and interactions, while perhaps not particularly realistic, are easy to visualize and imagine. For the style of games I enjoy, we can just decide as a group we're playing heroes and escape the gray and messy morality of the real world for a while. I like the creativity of DMing.

Specific to 5E

• Relatively clean and easy to understand rules.
• Decent format and layout. I don't have the issues some others have with this, not even the DMG.
• The artwork (other than halflings) is decent to good.
• The classes feel different and feel like they can fill in different niches
• I can do a dirt simple champion fighter and just turn off my brain or a while (perhaps focusing on RP) or play a wizard with a wide variety of options.
• The classes and options are reasonably well balanced, it's a team game though not a competition.
• As much as I enjoyed the technical tweaking of 3.x, I appreciate that in 5E it's more difficult to create a trash PC or an OP monster PC.
• I've run games up to 20th level and it worked far better than previous editions, although attrition becomes a big part of it.
• While combat slows down at times, it's typically because of over-analysis on the player's part, not because of the system.
• When there are little things that bother me they're easy to tweak with simple 1 or 2 sentence house rules. Bows are versatile in my game for example.
• While people I play with occasionally grumble about minor things (i.e. bonus action spells) for the most part we just have fun playing the game. The rules just work for us. If I wanted a more tactical/complex game there are options like Level Up that I could tack on.

Those are just some of the things off the top of my head but I have to go get ready for a game. Oh, and apparently move some rocks for my sister because my wife volunteered me as slave labor.

Snarf Zagyg said:

So ... what you are saying is that to that person, that art is superior, because it has more emotional value.

Or are you saying that we cannot value art for its power to evoke emotion, but only for its technical merit? That a Dutch Master (for example) will always and forever be "better" and "more quality" than folk art, no matter how powerfully that art moves you? Wouldn't this always and forever privilege the canon of western-style art that has been taught?

Or are you saying that we cannot value the expertise in someone who understands how to make great art, but is deliberately breaking the rules?



That's ... what ... objective ... means.

If today's temperature is 98 degrees, and yesterday it was 80 degrees, then today it is HOTTER than yesterday. The temperature is, quite literally, a fact that is dictated to you. You can't argue with it.

Here's your quote-
"but that doesn't mean its artistic quality is superior all of a sudden."

If quality is OBJECTIVE, then:
1. One piece of art can always (ALWAYS, because that's what objective means) be determined to be superior to another.
2. Therefore, it can always be determined in an absolute ranking, without any possibility of argument (OBJECTIVE) the ranking of art relative to each other.
3. From that point, it is a necessary implication that people that enjoy inferior art .... I'll let you think about that.



Of course you can! Guilty pleasures and all that. Then again, if it's keeping you engaged and you are watching it ... is it really bad television? Or is it just the case that maybe you don't want to admit that you are amongst the common people enjoying it?



Yeah, again, there's nothing wrong with attempting to view things objectively (this goes back to my original post on the subject- like a journalist, or a judge, or a jury attempting to use the 'reasonable man' standard). But unless there is an inarguable metric, it's still a subjective standard.

This is the fundamental divide that I keep explaining. The jujitsu that people keep using in order to make their own preferences inarguable. If something truly is objective (the calories in a burger, the pages in a book, the temperature, the year that the Berlin Wall actually fell, etc.) then it can't be argued.

When people say things like "The quality of a movie/game/art is objective," they are attempting to glom on to that in order to make their preferences seem ... well, inarguable. But all you have to do is look at the changing tastes regarding movies, games, and art and you'll see that it's an issue of preferences.


And that's fine! After all, if something is truly objective, it's not much fun to discuss ... is it? Hot enough for ya?

Click to expand...

Overall, I found this an interesting post, so thanks for that, seriously. I'd love to talk about emotions being evoked is definitely something to enjoy, but isn't necessarily about quality (since that's individual brain chemistry and so forth); how people don't necessarily want to glom their preferences (seems a bit general to me); how what might be arguable is the values of certain qualities over others (and not necessarily what is a quality for a certain thing) etc. It's an interesting topic, to be sure.

It's just that things like this

That's ... what ... objective ... means.

and this

3. From that point, it is a necessary implication that people that enjoy inferior art .... I'll let you think about that.

(Really? You'll let me? Thanks.)

are just so unnecessarily snarky so as to make the back-and-forth not enjoyable. I don't know; maybe it's "your thing" and I am just not appreciating it, but between that and putting words in my mouth (all the "or are you sayings") my enthusiasm has just dropped a lot. I am genuinely not trying to be insulting.

Oofta said:

That's all I was trying to say. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. If 5E were low quality it would not be successful, since it is successful it follows that it is a quality product.

Click to expand...

It does not follow. The Model T was hugely successful. Documented as not a quality product by the standards of that day. The Yugo, when originally released, was of low quality. Successful because it was cheap.